Mihajlo Bakrac, defense attorney of Franko Simatovic

Franko Simatovic’s defense continued the closing arguments, claiming that the accused was a low-ranking operative of the Serbian State Security Service, and that he could therefore not be a participant in the joint criminal enterprise whose goal was to expel non-Serbs from large areas in Croatia and BH. The defense denies the accused had any links with Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Martic, Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic and Captain Dragan Vasiljkovic. Indeed, as the defense claims, Simatovic had nothing to do with the first accused, Jovica Stanisic.

Challenging the prosecution’s argument that Simatovic was ‘No. 2 man in the service’ and Stanisic’s ‘right-hand man’, defense counsel Mihajlo Bakrac claimed the relationship of the two accused was ‘limited’ by the rules of service, and did not go beyond what is ordinarily expected from the chief and an operative. Stanisic’s defense also contested their closeness, in an obvious effort to show Stanisic had nothing to do with the events in the field.

The defense claims that all the evidence of Simatovic’s contacts with the other members of the joint criminal enterprise is reduced to ‘two photographs, two intercepted conversations and two entries in Ratko Mladic’s diaries’, which show that he did not take part in the discussions, and was not close with the people he talked to on the phone, for instance Radovan Karadzic.

According to the defense, there is no evidence that Franko Simatovic commanded the Serbian DB unit known as the Red Berets; the unit was dubbed ‘Frenki’s men’. Defense counsel Vladimir Petrovic noted that the accused signed the unit payrolls with the formula ‘for deputy commander Milan Radonjic’. The defense paid special attention to a video recording to the ceremony to celebrate the unit’s anniversary in Kula, in 1997, when Simatovic spoke, saying that 5,000 members of the Red Berets had taken part in 50 combat operations in Croatia and BH between 1991 and 1995, and that the Serbian DB had set up 26 training camps in the parts of the two states that the Serbs claimed as their own. The defense contends that Simatovic’s speech contained claims that were ‘overstated, exaggerated and excessive’: the aim was to impress the guest of honor, the Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

As he completed his closing remarks, Petrović said the evidence showed Simatovic was a counter-intelligence operative. This, as he said, explained his frequent travels ‘abroad’, to parts of Croatia and BH under his control, and his contacts with the highest officials in the two entities and the Republic of Serbia. According to the defense, he cannot be a Serb nationalist because he has family living in Croatia. There is no evidence of his involvement in the crimes and participation in combat operations. The defense thus demanded that he be acquitted.

Before the hearing ended, the prosecution was given an opportunity to respond to the defense’s arguments. Prosecutor Maxine Marcus dealt, among other issues, with the claim that the Kula ceremony was ‘a show put up for Milosevic’, stressing that after the Serbian president left, the participants ‘did not congratulate each other on excellent acting’, but continued with the speeches and awards. The defense counsel had a chance to address the judges once again. They asked the judges to be cautious as they distinguish between ‘assertions and evidence’, urging them to rely only on the evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

This marked the end of the trial that stated in June 2009. The two parties rested their cases last September. The presiding judge thanked the parties for their cooperation and adjourned the proceedings sine die, without setting a date for any further hearings, and the parties will now await the judgment in the case against the two former Serbian DB chiefs.

Sharing