Dudaković Case: Witness Statements Contradict Material Evidence, BiH Prosecution Only Wants to Read Such Statements

(Patria) - The trial in the case of Atif Dudaković and others continued before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where material evidence definitively confirmed that prosecutors Vedrana Mijović and Marijana Čobović did not use mitigating circumstances for the accused, but on the contrary, through instructions to witnesses, they sought to show the opposite of what the evidence indicates.

Thus, today witness Neđeljko Petrović spoke about the death of his father Boško Petrović, whose remains he claims to have taken over in 2007. He stated that he had only given blood earlier and that Doctor Karan informed him that they had found him. He does not know when his father was exhumed.

In the end, the defense, using the evidence of the BiH Prosecution, presented to the witness the fact that his father was found in a military uniform, as stated in the record of March 21, 1996, at the Military Court in Banja Luka. However, the witness said he knows nothing about that and that his father was not a soldier.

Also, the defense asked the witness whether he knew that his father's body was found near the place Gorjevac, which is a different direction from Vrtač towards Bihać, and not towards Bosanski Petrovac as he testified.

“I don't know why he would go with livestock towards Bihać, and not Bosanski Petrovac,” said the witness.

The defense then objected that it was time for the BiH Prosecution to start using documents that speak in favor of the accused, and that it was their duty to establish the truth.

After an objection from the BiH Prosecution, the Court of BiH stated that the defense has the right to use the Prosecution's evidence in examining witnesses.

Although the witness claimed he did not know when his father's body was found, attorney Mirna Avdibegović presented to the witness his statement from 2015 given at the CJB Banja Luka, in which the witness said that his father's body was found in December 1995.

Another witness, Tanja Runić, testified about the circumstances of the death of her father Nikola, for whom she said he remained in Bosanski Petrovac even after her mother Danica left for Banja Luka.

“To this day, we know nothing about him. We reported his disappearance and gave blood, but he has not been found.”

She stated that all her property was returned, including two apartments in Bosanski Petrovac and the estate.

The material evidence states that the disappearance of her father Nikola was reported on October 15, 1995, and that he had a military shirt, which she denied, saying she reported the disappearance in September 1995 in Banja Luka.

Incidentally, during the taking of personal data, this witness told the Court that she currently does not work at the place mentioned in the record. And when the defense asked her when she saw that record, prosecutor Mijović tried to answer on behalf of the witness, stating that the witness knows what she stated when giving her statement. However, this witness said that she was at the BiH Prosecution this morning for preparations and that she saw the record then.

The third witness, Mirjana Joković, recounted the disappearance of her aunt Mileva Bijelić, who left the area of Šibenik heading towards Banja Luka or Serbia after the start of Operation Storm in 1995.

She claims that Mileva was last seen in the vicinity of Bosanski Petrovac. Mirjana led the entire process of reporting and identifying her aunt, but could not remember what was written in the records and forensic medical findings, which state that her aunt actually died of natural causes in August 1995.

She confirmed that her aunt was in poor health and was only passing through Bosanski Petrovac.

Incidentally, today the prosecutors requested that for about 200 witnesses who are not direct witnesses of the events but testify about the deaths of their loved ones, only their statements be read to save time, to which the defense strongly objected, stating that today's testimonies showed that witness statements are often in contradiction with material evidence.

The Court said that the Prosecution should submit a list of those 200 witnesses, but that the defense has the right to cross-examinations.