The Panel of Section I for War Crimes of the Appellate Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, having held a session in the criminal case of Momir Tasić et al., rendered a Judgment dismissing as unfounded the Appeal by the Defense Counsel for the Accused Momir Tasić, and partially granting the Appeal by the Defense Counsel for the Accused Petar Tasić, whereby the Judgment No. S1 1 K 024006 17 Kri dated 6 September 2018 was revised with respect to the decision on the sentence for the Accused Petar Tasić by imposing on the Accused a sentence of imprisonment for the term of 5 (five) years for the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (g) and (i) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC B-H), as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC B-H, in application of Articles 39, 42, 48, 49 and 50(1)(a) of the CC B-H. In the remaining part the Trial Judgment was upheld.
Under the Trial Judgment of the Court of B-H No. S1 1 K 24006 17 Kri dated 6 September 2018, the Accused Momir Tasić was found guilty of having committed, with the acts described in the enacting clause of the Judgment, the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (i) and (g) of the CC B-H, all as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC B-H. The Accused Petar Tasić was found guilty of having committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1) and (h), as read with Sub-Paragraph (i) of the CC B-H, all as read with Article 29 of the CC B-H.
The Court sentenced the Accused Momir Tasić to imprisonment for the term of 14 (fourteen) years, and the Accused Petar Tasić to imprisonment for the term of 10 (ten) years. Pursuant to Article 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CPC B-H), as read with Articles 200 and 202 of the Law on Obligations, the injured party’s claim under property law was awarded in part.
Under the Judgment, pursuant to Article 284(c) of the CPC B-H, the Accused Mirko Tasić was acquitted of the charges that with the acts described in the enacting clause of the Judgment he committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (g), (i) and (k) of the CC B-H, all as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC B-H.
The respective Defense Counsel for the Accused Momir Tasić and Petar Tasić filed timely appeals from the Judgment. The Counsel for the Accused Momir Tasić filed the Appeal on the grounds of essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions, erroneously and incompletely established state of facts, and the decision on claims under property law, and moved the Panel of the Appellate Division of the Court of B-H to grant the Appeal fully, revoke the Trial Judgment, schedule a hearing and re-examine certain witnesses.
The Counsel for the Accused Petar Tasić filed the Appeal on the grounds of essential violation of the criminal procedure provisions, violation of the Criminal Code, erroneously and incompletely established state of facts, decision on the criminal sanction and claim under property law, violation of Article II/3(e) of the Constitution of B-H and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Counsel moved the Appellate Panel of the Court of B-H to grant the Appeal and revise the contested Judgment in its convicting part by acquitting the Accused Petar Tasić of the charges, or to revoke the impugned Judgment in the convicting part and schedule a hearing before the Appellate Panel.
The Prosecutor’s Office of B-H submitted responses to the respective Defense Counsel Appeals, moving the Appellate Panel to dismiss the Appeals as unfounded and to uphold the Trial Judgment entirely with respect to the Accused Momir Tasić and Petar Tasić.
At a session of the Appellate Panel held on 31 January 2019, pursuant to Article 304 of the CPC B-H, the Defense Counsel reiterated their appeal grievances and grounds for appeal presented in the written Appeals, and the Accused supported their Counsel’s arguments. The Prosecutor also reiterated his motion from the response to the Appeals.
