The Prosecution alleges that Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, together with other members of the Crisis Staff of the Municipality of Ključ, planned, instigated, aided and abetted in the persecution of non-Serb population in the Municipality of Ključ from April to December 1992. Boško Lukić acted in the capacity of Commander of the Territorial Defence Staff of Ključ Municipality, member of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipality, and member of the Defence Command of Ključ Municipality, while Marko Adamović acted in the capacity of a member of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipality, Commander of the Defence Command of Ključ, and Deputy Commander of the Ključ Battalion of Territorial Defence. The Prosecutor’s motion alleges that after the shelling of the villages Pudin Han, Velagići, Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Ramići and Biljani, all the civilian population were expelled from their homes, able-bodied men were then separated from women and children and detained on the premises of the Public Security Station and in the Nikola Mačkić Primary School. The detained men were allegedly interrogated and abused both mentally and physically, by the military and the police; afterwards some of them were released to go home, while over 1000 were taken to the Manjača camp. The Prosecution further alleges that all the people who were released, as well as those who had not been detained at all, were persecuted and killed. Over 300 civilians were killed in this manner. Additionally, Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović are suspected of having planned and instigated the attack on and the destruction of commercial and religious buildings of non-Serb population in the Municipality of Ključ.
Having reviewed the submitted evidence, the Court found that there exited grounds for suspicion that the suspects committed the alleged criminal offense in question. The Court has ordered the suspects into custody, with respect to the circumstances suggesting the risk of their leaving the territory of BiH, whereby they would become unavailable to the law enforcement bodies. Also, the Court has ordered the custody having assessed that there is enough evidence suggesting that the suspects, if not in custody, could hinder the criminal proceedings by influencing witnesses or possible accomplices. Taking into account the gravity of the offense, and the emotional anxiety and trauma that the surviving victims would experience if the suspects were not ordered into custody, the Court has ordered the suspects into custody for the purpose of public security.
