Bratunac – Suha: Three Years for the Forcible Displacement of 300 Civilians

On May 13, 2025, the War Crimes Department of the Higher Court in Belgrade delivered a first-instance judgment finding finding Jovan Novaković guilty of the criminal offense of war crime against the civilian population under Article 142, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), sentencing him to three years in prison – a sentence below the statutory minimum for this offense.

The court established that on June 10, 1992, Novaković, acting as the commander of the Moštanica Territorial Defense Company in Bratunac, forcibly displaced approximately 300 Bosniak civilians from the village of Suha (Bratunac municipality), including women and children. During the attack, Novaković ordered civilians to leave their homes, participated in their removal, and threatened some civilians with death if they did not find and bring other members of their families. The civilians were then marched in a column to the Bratunac football stadium, where civilians from other locations were also brought under armed guard. From the stadium, women, children, and the elderly were deported by buses to the town of Kladanj, while military-age men were detained in the premises of the “Vuk Karadžić” Primary School in Bratunac.

The prison sentence proposed by the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office, and subsequently imposed by the court, is inadequate given the established facts and the severity of the crime for which the accused was convicted. Issuing a sentence below the statutory minimum in this case is deemed inappropriate.

In explaining the judgment, the presiding judge, Vladimir Duruz, emphasized that the evidence indicated civilians were not, as the defense claimed, taken from their homes to sign declarations of loyalty to the Serbian authorities. He also noted that the accused held significantly more power during the relevant period than he admitted. The court highlighted contradictions in Novaković’s defense – both with his own statements and with witness testimonies. Initially, Novaković claimed he wore a uniform and carried a weapon, only to deny it later. He first stated that the residents were being taken to sign declarations of loyalty and that displacement was planned, but later claimed he was unaware of any displacement. Additional contradictions are evident in the fact that residents of Suha were not given a choice, nor were they allowed to return to their homes.

The presiding judge further noted that even the defense witness, Mustafa Musić, indicated in his testimony that the accused had the power to protect him, and that such protection was necessary, which suggests the presence of a real threat and challenges the claim that the entire operation was merely about signing loyalty declarations.

The court considered the time elapsed since the crime was committed, the fact that the accused had not committed any other offenses in the meantime, and his health condition as grounds for mitigating the sentence. However, such mitigation is unjustified, especially given that the crime was committed against a large number of victims personally known to Novaković and that he showed no remorse or admitted guilt during the trial.

The passage of time should not serve as a basis for sentence mitigation in war crimes cases, due to both the gravity and nature of these crimes and the fact that they are not subject to a statute of limitations. The practice of using time elapsed as a mitigating factor is unsustainable, particularly considering that relevant authorities often avoid or delay initiating and conducting war crimes proceedings. In this specific case, the proceedings lasted over five years, further underscoring that the passage of time cannot justify a reduced sentence but rather points to a systemic problem in prosecuting such crimes.