Acquittal for genocide in Srebrenica, BiH Prosecutor's Office appeal rejected

SARAJEVO, (Patria) - The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has rejected the Prosecutor's Office appeal and upheld the verdict acquitting Miodrag Josipović and others of charges of genocide in Srebrenica, lawyers confirmed for the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIRN BiH).

Dragan Gotovac, defense attorney for the first defendant Miodrag Josipović, and Aleksandar Lazarević, defense attorney for the third defendant Dragomir Vasić, confirmed that the Prosecutor's Office appeal was rejected and the final verdict was delivered over a month ago.

“The verdict was dispatched on July 15, and the defense teams received it on July 22 and 23,” said Gotovac.

The Court of BiH confirmed that the verdict was reached but could not provide further information, as they are not certain whether all parties have received the second-instance decision.

Due to lack of evidence, the Court of BiH in November last year acquitted in the first instance Miodrag Josipović, Branimir Tešić, Dragomir Vasić, Danilo Zoljić, and Radomir Pantić of charges of participating in the partial extermination of the Bosniak population of Eastern Bosnia, as BIRN BiH previously reported.

“The Prosecutor's Office did not prove the intent of the accused for extermination,” said then-presiding judge Minka Kreho, adding that the presence of police at certain locations was not sufficient for a conviction.

Josipović was the chief of the Public Security Station (SJB) in Bratunac, Tešić was the deputy commander of the Police Station in Bratunac, Vasić was the chief of the Zvornik Public Security Center (CJB), Zoljić was the commander of the Special Police Units (PJP), and Pantić was the former commander of the First Company of the PJP.

Vasić was acquitted of the charge of committing genocide, while the other four were acquitted of aiding in genocide.

The Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina had previously, by filing an appeal with the Appellate Chamber, sought the annulment of the first-instance verdict and the scheduling of a main trial where all evidence would be presented.