Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centerlative is complete, applicable, and compliant to the International Conventionson Human and Minority Rights and Civil Freedoms applicable at theterritory of Serbia and Montenegro. When the Supreme Court was evaluatingthe allegations from this part of the appeal, it had in mind that the stateof immediate war danger was pronounced in the ‘FRY Gazette’ number 14/99 on 23 March 1999 and that the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslaviawas bombed by NATO forces already on 24 March 1999 and thatthe decision on proclaiming the state of war was proclaimed in the ‘FRYGazette’ number 15/99 on 25 March 1999, due to which it is obvious thatthe application of the Geneva Conventions is necessary. At the same timethere was an internal armed conflict in Kosovo, the territory of the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia and the Court provided sufficient reasons for thisclaim on pages 24 and 25 and then on pages 41 and 42 of the appealedverdict’s Statement of Reasons. Thus, the first instance Court’s conclusionthat, in situation when both, armed conflict and war, exist as objectivecircumstances, as well as determined facts, which correlate these circumstancesto the crime committed, International Law provisions contained inthe Geneva Conventions are applied.The Supreme Court also evaluated other allegations of the Defence Council’sappeals relating to the determined factual background, which challengethe evaluation of the evidence adduced by the first Court and providetheir evaluation of the evidence adduced. The Supreme Court foundthat these allegations are unfounded and without any significant influenceto the different result of this criminal trial.Hence, the factual background, including the facts representing the relevantelements of this crime and the facts regarding the psychological relationof the defendant towards the crime committed, is correctly and completelydetermined and by the qualification of defendant Cvjetan Saša’scriminal activity pursuant to Article 142 Para 1 of the FRY Criminal Code,the criminal code was properly applied. In relation to this, the first instanceCourt gave sufficient, clear, and convincing reasons in the appealed verdict’sStatement of Reasons, which are completely accepted by the SupremeCourt.In the process of evaluation of the first instance verdict in the part of thedecision of the punishment conducted pursuant to Article 383 of the Crim-350