Former member of the European Community Monitoring Mission testifies about "incredible" claims that Dubrovnik was shelled by forces "out of JNA control" and the accused General Pavle Strugar's assertion that damage to the Old Town was "the result of the actions launched by Croatian units."

By drawing attention to inconsistencies between two reports during the cross-examination of a UNESCO expert, defence counsel for General Pavle Strugar tries to limit the damage to Dubrovnik’s Old Town caused by the shelling of 6 December 1991.

The defence for General Pavle Strugar challenges the findings of the UNESCO expert team that assessed damage to the Old Town of Dubrovnik caused by shelling, pointing out that the site investigation records showed as many as six investigations were carried out in only 33 minutes in various locations in town.

Testimony of pathologist who carried out autopsies on victims of the three-month long siege and shelling of Dubrovnik - a UNESCO-protected town - in late 1991. General Strugar's defence challenges "partial autopsy" reports.

Djelo Jusic insisted that pouring the "hot oil" over the conquerors of Dubrovnik was the only potential weapon he had heard of, despite the claims by General Strugar’s defense that there were Croatian Army units in Dubrovnik and that the witness’s brother Mujica joined those units.

New testimony on the effects of the shelling of the Old Town of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991. From the public gallery, psychiatrists retained by the prosecution monitor the responses of the accused General Pavle Strugar.

The defence of the accused General Strugar claims that one of the two inhabitants of Dubrovnik who were killed in the shelling of the Old Town on 6 December 1991 bled out because he did not receive aid for two and a half hours after he was wounded

At the beginning of his testimony at the trial of General Pavle Strugar, admiral Miodrag Jokic described the atmosphere of lack of discipline and impunity among the JNA forces that held the town of Dubrovnik under siege and shelled its old part in the fall of 1991

According to Admiral Miodrag Jokic, the shelling of the Old Town of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 was not a "spontaneous action". Instead of an investigation and punishment for those responsible, early promotions were given to Captain "Rambo" and the other participants in the JNA Dubrovnik operation.

After examining the accused general Strugar, the experts appointed by the prosecution reached conclusions contrary to those of the experts whose findings the defense uses to move for the suspension of the trial.

If the Trial Chamber decides that the accused is not competent to stand trial and orders the trial suspended, it seems likely that will spell the end of the Dubrovnik indictment with its three accused – General Strugar, Vice admiral Jokic and Captain Kovacevic a/k/a Rambo.

Ivan Negodic testified about what artillery the defenders of Dubrovnik had and where it was located Dubrovnik citizens, contradicting the testimony of previous witnesses that there had been no mortar positions or armed people anywhere near the Old Town.

Former artillery chief of the Dubrovnik defense forces testifies at the trial of General Pavle Strugar.

General Strugar's defense claims that Dubrovnik’s defenders shelled themselves--and the Old Town--by accident, because the sights on their weapons were out of order. Ivan Negodic, former commander of the Dubrovnik artillery, categorically denies that possibility.

The court hears testimony from Dr. Beneth Blum, one of three psychiatrists who examined General Strugar at the request of the prosecution in March and found the accused able to function, follow and understand his trial--despite his health problems.

Defense and prosecution experts reach contrary conclusions about the mental state and competency of General Pavle Strugar.

A decision about the future of the Dubrovnik trial will be issued "as soon as possible," state judges at the end of hearings on General Strugar's competency to stand trial

The prosecution puts a military expert on the stand to prove that the damage to the Old Town of Dubrovnik inflicted on 6 December 1991 was not "collateral"

The prosecution rests its case in the trial for the shelling of Dubrovnik. The defense of General Pavle Strugar is set to begin its case on 28 June if judges decide the accused general is competent to stand trial

In the Tribunal’s first decision on the issue of competency during its ten years of existence, a Trial Chamber dismisses a motion by 71-year old General Pavle Strugar to discontinue his trial because of physical and mental health problems.

General Pavle Strugar’s defense lawyers file a motion claiming that prosecutors failed to prove their client’s responsibility for the shelling of Dubrovnik in 1991.

In response to a defense motion calling for the acquittal of General Pavle Strugar, the prosecution claims it has proven "beyond reasonable doubt" the responsibility of the accused for the shelling of Dubrovnik in December 1991.

The defense of General Pavle Strugar opens with his counsel saying that the General “neither ordered nor was notified" about the shelling of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991; the defense case is expected to take less than four weeks.

General Pavle Strugar's defense is trying to prove that the accused, as commander of the 2nd Operational Group engaged in the JNA Dubrovnik operation, did not know that on 5 December 1991, Admiral Miodrag Jokic agreed to a ceasefire with representatives of Croatian authorities that was supposed to enter into force on 6 December, the start of a fierce artillery attack on Dubrovnik and its Old Town.

Through the testimony of a participant in the attack on Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991, the defense is trying to prove that General Pavle Strugar did not issue the order for the attack, laying the blame on Admiral Miodrag Jokic.

The witness who was eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between General Veljko Kadijevic and Admiral Jokic in December 1991, claims that the Chief of General Staff was scolding the commander of the 9th Naval Sector for "carrying our small tactical actions" around Dubrovnik, while the JNA top was "trying to topple Tudjman"

Witnesses called by the defense of JNA General Pavle Strugar, who stands accused of the shelling of Dubrovnik in December 1991, claim that the Croatian forces opened fire from mortars and other artillery weapons from the Old Town

The chamber hearing the case of General Pavle Strugar will visit Dubrovnik and its environs during the summer recess in order to acquaint themselves with the locations where the parties to the conflict held their positions in late 1991

Character witnesses for General Pavle Strugar called. He is charged with the shelling of Dubrovnik in December 1991

Military expert called by General Strugar's defence claims that the JNA did not deliberately target Dubrovnik, and that the disposition of the Croatian forces posed a threat to the Old Town

The prosecution calls Admiral Miodrag Jokic to the witness stand in an attempt to challenge some of the testimony heard during the presentation of General Pavle Strugar's evidence

In the closing argument at the trial for the shelling of Dubrovnik in 1991, prosecutors stated that General Pavle Strugar's guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt and sought 13 to 15 years in prison for him

The defense calls for acquittal while the prosecution proposes 13 to 15 years in prison. The trial ends with an address by the accused to the Trial Chamber

Former commander of the JNA Second Operational Group – in charge of the "Dubrovnik operation" – has been charged with the attacks on civilian targets in the Old Town of Dubrovnik. Prosecution has asked for 13 to 15 years in prison, defense for acquittal. Judges seek additional clarification with regard to the application for the deferral of the Vladimir Kovacevic, Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac to the courts in SCG and Croatia. New judge appointed in the Krajisnik case.

The Chamber finds that the prosecution has presented enough evidence to prove that all the crimes described in the six counts of the Dubrovnik indictment were indeed committed, but has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that General Pavle Strugar is individually responsible for the attack on the Old Town of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 and the consequences of that attack

The Appeals Chamber found General Pavle Strugar guilty on two more counts in the indictments: for devastation not justified by military necessity and unlawful attacks on civilian objects in the Old Town of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991. It nevertheless commuted his sentence on grounds of his ill health: to seven and a half years in prison instead of the eight years imposed by the Trial Chamber