The Accused Ratko Dronjak is found guilty because he, in the period between May 1992 and late 1995, being de iure and de facto commander of the prison in the Slavko Rodić elementary school in Drvar and the camp in the old elementary school in the village of Kamenica (camp “Kamenica”) in Drvar, together with the guards and under the control of members of Military Security under the supervision of the Chief, security officer and military police of the 2nd Krajina Corps and their commanders, participated in the joint criminal enterprise directed against the non-Serb civilian population in the territory of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK), fully aware of the common objective of the widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, knowingly sharing the agreed criminal intention, supported and aided and abetted the execution of the plan of persecution, in the way that as a superior and person responsible for the work of the guards he had true control over the work and conduct of all guards and other persons who worked in the camp and all others who would come to the camp, and he supervised and had full control over the living conditions, over the lives and bodies of the imprisoned civilians and prisoners of war. The Accused participated in the admission of civilians, illegally deprived of liberty, in the Slavko Rodić elementary school and the Kamenica camp, and personally took part in various forms of physical and psychological violence over the incarcerated Bosniacs and Croats, in harsh and degrading conditions, keeping the captives without satisfying their basic living needs, such as appropriate food, drinking water, and in unhygienic conditions and overcrowded rooms, subjecting them to beating, torture, humiliation and psychological ill-treatment, keeping them in a constant fear for their lives. In that way, the Accused incited and aided and abetted the persecution of non‑Serb civilian population on a political, national, ethnic, and religious grounds, by committing torture, beating, killing, inhumane treatment and the infliction of injuries on their bodily integrity and health, forcing them to perform forced labor and causing their forcible disappearance.
The Trial Chamber also issued the Decision to extend custody of the Accused, by which the custody is extended for the maximum of nine months, that is, until 1 March 2013, unless the prison term sentence imposed on the Accused Ratko Dronjak in this Verdict becomes final, in which case the Accused Ratko Dronjak would remain in custody pending his referral to serve the prison term, however no longer than the term of the imposed sanction.
A person shall be considered innocent of a crime until guilt has been established by a final Verdict. (Article 3 of the CPC BiH)
A First Instance Panel makes a decision on the basis of the evidence which was presented at the trial by the Prosecution and the Defence. The First Instance Panel does not establish the substantive truth but pronounces its Verdict based on the evidence at trial which must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a guilty Verdict to occur.
This Verdict is not final. This Verdict may be appealed and an Appeal shall be reviewed by the Appellate Division of the Court. An Appeal may contain new evidence if the parties to the proceedings and the defence prove that they were not able to present it during the First Instance Proceedings.
Respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence is an integral part of the right to a fair trial. It is recommended that commentary on a First Instance Panel’s Decision not occur until a final Decision is issued. Opinions and information relating to an ongoing criminal proceeding should only be communicated or disseminated when it does not prejudice the presumption of innocence of the Suspect or the Accused. (Appendix to Recommendation Rec (2993)13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 10 July 2003)
Should there be commentary on the Decision, it is recommended to obtain any needed additional information from the authorized spokesperson of the Court. It is further recommended that any commentary also include the opinions of knowledgeable legal scholars and practitioners.