The trial against the accused Dinko Ljubomir Sakic for criminal offence from Article 120, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Croatia, after three and a half months after commencement, entered a stage when the defendant concluded with stating his defence.

The defendant Dinko Ljubomir Sakic started stating his defence on June 24 after official police minutes on interviews with the witnesses subsequently heard before the court and other citizens had been withdrawn from the case file pursuant to a ruling of the Panel.

The defendant stated his defence on June 24, 28 and 29, taking a total of nine hours, in which he outlined the course of his life and rejected all counts of the indictment.

After he concluded his defence, the defendant announced he would refuse to answer any questions, so that no questions aimed at clarifying his defence could be put either by the defence, the prosecution, the presiding judge, the Panel or the attorney for the injured party.

Upon the completion of the defendant’s testimony, for the first time in this trial his attorneys made motions to examine evidence. The motions referred to two expert analyses, confrontation of certain witnesses and an on-site inspection.

The County Public Prosecutor and attorney for the injured party objected to the defence’s motions, making it necessary for the Panel to rule on the motions.

The Panel sustained the motion to re-examine the witness Tibor Lovrencic and to examine in the capacity as witness of Josip Jurcevic, M.Sc., who has been proposed by the defence primarily as an expert witness and only secondarily as a witness. A ruling on the necessity to re-examine the witness Dervis Sarac is to be made in due course.

The motion to hear medical expert witness, a specialist in diabetes and nutrition, has been rejected as irrelevant, being focused, in the Panel’s opinion, on the establishment of widely known facts, while the motions to confront individual witnesses has been rejected as inappropriate and as falling short of reaching a better understanding of the material facts of the case. The Panel also rejected as immaterial the motion for the Panel and the parties to perform an on-site inspection of the location of the Jasenovac camp.

The Panel ruled to examine the plan of the Jasenovac camp that the defendant submitted to the court to be included in the case file.

Following the examination of witnesses and evidence pursuant to the Panel’s ruling, the defendant shall be asked to re-state his defence, as required by law. After he does so and if no other evidence or no amendments to the indictment are proposed, the trial shall continue with the closing statements of both parties.

Our next meeting and press release is scheduled following the termination of the next week of the trial.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
Damir Kos