Trial of Halilović and Veseli: Court panel also sought clarification, who is the commander, unit or group

The main hearing in the case against Sakib Halilović and Elfeta Veseli continued today at the Court of BiH, writes the Patria News Agency.

Omer Đulbegović testified, emphasizing that in the summer of 1992, he joined a group in Dubrave near Tuzla, which he believes was commanded by Sakib Halilović, also known as Kibe, pointing to the accused in the courtroom.

When pressed by prosecutor Miroslav Janjić to state whether it was a unit, Đulbegović said it was something like an intervention unit, but that it did not participate in combat in that area. When asked by attorney Mirna Delalić whether Đulbegović was recognized as a member of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in this "unit" of Kibe's, the witness stated that he was not, but that he only became a member of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in November 1992.

The witness also said that he received a document from the Ministry of Defense department in Sapna, signed by Almir Seferović as commander, confirming his membership in that unit where Seferović was the commander.

This statement further confused the members of the court panel, so judge Enida Hadžiomerović questioned the witness in detail, asking him which unit he belonged to. The witness maintained his earlier statement that Almir Seferović was the commander in that area, and that he signed the confirmation of unit membership based on which Đulbegović is now trying to claim war-related rights.

Regarding the accused Elfeta Veseli, the witness did not mention her surname at any point during his testimony, but stated that he had only heard about the suffering of a child. The presiding judge of the Court Panel, Darko Samardžić, informed the parties in the proceedings that a decision on the acceptance of the autopsy report would be made later, after the BiH Prosecutor's Office submits the material evidence, apparently considering the defense's objections from the previous hearing, when they stated that this autopsy report did not align with other evidence.

The judge asked prosecutor Janjić to explain how it was possible that Dr. Zoran Stanković was proposed as an expert witness, and yet the prosecutor did not have a written report and opinion from the expert witness when filing the indictment.

Janjić stated that Stanković had verbally confirmed to him that he had a report which he would submit later!?

The continuation of the trial is scheduled for September 14.