o^i boje fronta - mreža za izgradnju mirao^i boje fronta* projekat centra za antiratnu akciju o...

O^I BOJEFRONTA

MIRPN

TIRN AA T NA UZ AR KA CTIN JE U

C

BE DO ARG

¤ ¤

Projekat Centra za antiratnu akciju

o licima koja se nisu

odazvala vojnom pozivu

ili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavije

tokom NATO intervencije

u SR Jugoslaviji

CENTAR ZA ANTIRATNU AKCIJU

O^I BOJEFRONTA

��

projekat Centra za antiratnu akcijuo licima koja se nisu odazvala vojnom pozivu

ili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavijetokom NATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji

CENTAR ZA ANTIRATNU AKCIJUBeograd, avgust 2000.

O^I BOJE FRONTA*Projekat centra za antiratnu akciju o licima koja se nisu odazvalavojnom pozivu ili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavije tokomNATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji

Izdava~

CENTAR ZA ANTIRATNU AKCIJUVe}e za ljudska prava

Urednik

dr Vesna Pe{i}

Lektor-korektor

Mirjana Kosti}

Tehni~ki urednik

Denis Radovanovi}

Priprema za {tampu

Tira`

500

[tampa

Art-Grafik, Beograd

ISBN 86-82297-37-X

* Plo~nici Toronta... O~i boje fronta... Lozinka svih nasStih iz pesme “@iveti slobodno” sa albuma “Devedesete”, autora \or|a Bala{evi}a

A

Sadràj

Napomena izdava~a 7

Note of the Publisher 10

OÎ BOJE FRONTA

I. Stanje do 24. marta 1999. godine 13

II. Krivi~no zakonodavstvo SRJ 16

III. ostupanje sudova 23

IV. Zapaànja o krivi~nom postupku 27

V. Broj lica koja se nisu odazvala vojnompozivu i koja su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavije 32

VI. Obrada jednog broja predmeta 36

EYES THE COLOR OF THE FRONTLINE 53

I. Situation until march 24, 1999 55

II. Criminal legislation of fry 59

III. Action by the courts 68

IV. Observations on criminal procedure 72

V. Number of persons who boycotted the draftand of persons who deserted from the Yugoslav Army 78

VI. Analysis of specific cases 83

Izve{taj Centra za antiratnu akciju 101

Report of the Center for Antiwar Action 107

Napomena izdava~a

Centar za antiratnu akciju (dalje: Centar) oformio je pro-jekat pod nazivom O~i boje fronta. Razlozi za to su vi{estruki inalaze se u sveukupnosti sloène unutra{nje i me|unarodnesituacije, posmatrane kako sa dru{tvenog i politi~kog, tako i savojnog aspekta. U tom smislu, potrebno je posebno ukazati na~injenicu da je ovako kompleksna i komplikovana stvarnostdodatno bila optere}ena ogromnim gre{kama koje su u~inilitada{nji reìm u SR Jugoslviji kao i me|unarodna zajednica, a{to je sve dovelo do NATO intervencije sa stravi~nim i jo{ uvekne u potpunosti sagledivim posledicama po na{u zemlju.

Izgubljeni ljudski ìvoti su o~igledno najteà posledicakoja nas je zadesila. Zvani~an podatak o broju poginulih lica idalje nije objavljen, humanitarna, materijalna, ekolo{ka i svakadruga {teta su ogromne i jo{ uvek nemerljive, a brojne su ipovrede medunarodnog i vlastitog unutra{njeg prava koje suu~inile dràve ~lanice NATO za vreme intervencije.

Me|utim, pored ovih drasti~nih posledica NATO inter-vencije, u isto vreme su se odigrali jo{ neki dogo|aji, koji suzbog svog dru{tvenog i posebno pravosudnog zna~aja, na svo-jevrsan na~in obeleìli na{u stvarnost. To su, izme|u ostalog,odbijanje ve}eg broja gra|ana da uzmu u}e{}e u Vojsci Ju-goslavije i neujedna~ena kaznena politika po tom pitanju. Iako suova pitanja od ogromnog dru{tvenog i pravnog zna~aja, onda{nje

vlasti nisu informisale javnost istinito i blagovremeno. Poredtoga, neke nevladine organizacije su iznosile me|usobno kon-tradiktorne informacije, {to je stvaralo dodatnu konfuziju i strahkod gra|ana.

Imaju}i sve to u vidu, Centar se opredelio da o svemuprogovori otvoreno i odgovorno. U tom cilju, Centar je stru~no iozbiljno istraìo, odnosno osvetlio onu stranu sloène i osetljiveproblematike koja se odnosi na odbijanje gra|ana da uzmu oru-`je u ruke i upuste se u neravnoptavan i besmislen rat protivNATO i s tim u vezi razli~itog postupanja na{ih sudova.

Iz navedenih razloga Centar je uspostavio projekat «O~iboje fronta«, koji se odnosi na lica koja se nisu odazvala vojnompozivu ili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavije tokom NATO in-tervencije u SR Jugoslaviji. Ovaj projekat rezultat je {estome-se~nog rada grupe istraìva~a i stru~njaka Centra. Istraìvanje jeobavljeno tokom 2000. godine, a prethodila su mu individualnaistraìvanja pojedinih saradnika tokom druge polovine 1999.godine.

Rezultati istraìvanja koji se nalaze se pred vama po-kazuju da je na{e zakonodavstvo u predmetnoj oblasti ispo-litizovano i da je sudska praksa po istom pitanju neusagla{ena.Rezultati istraìvanja sadrè i ve}i broj podataka u vezi lica kojasu odbila da se uklju~e u jedinice Vojske Jugoslavije prilikomNATO intervencije. Tako|e, detaljno je obra|eno i nekolikodesetina karakteristi~nih slu~ajeva.

Imaju}i sve izneto u vidu, a posebno op{te uslove i okol-nosti u kojima su uglavnom mladi ljudi odbili da se upuste u rat sNATO, kao i ~injenicu da sudovi, pogotovu na teritoriji Srbije i uprvim mesecima rada po navedenim slu~ajevima, nisu dovoljnovodili ra~una o istinskoj individualizaciji kazne, stvorena jesituacija da veliki broj ovih ljudi bude osu|en na kazne zatvora i

8 Centar za antiratnu akciju

to u duèm vremenskom periodu i da sada ~eka da bude pozvanna izvr{enje kazne.

Zbog svega ovog, Centar se zalaè za prevazilaènje pro-blema na na~in da se amnestiraju svi zatvoreni i da se obustavesvi sudski postupci.

O~i boje fronta 9

Note of the Publisher

The Centre for Antiwar Action (hereinafter: the Centre)has elaborated a project entitled Eyes the color of the frontline.Reasons for this were multiple and can be found in the overall in-ternal and international situation, observed both from the socialand political, as well as military aspect. In that sense, it is neces-sary to particularly point to the fact that such complex and com-plicated reality was additionally burdened by grave mistakescommitted by both the then regime in Yugoslavia and the inter-national community, which brought about the NATO interven-tion with appalling and not yet fully determined consequencesfor our country.

Lost human lives are obviously the gravest consequencethat we had suffered. The official data on the number of killedhave not been published yet, while humanitarian, material, eco-logical and every other damages were enormous and are still im-measurable, which was all accompanied by numerous violationsof international and our own national law committed by NATOmember states during the intervention.

However, despite these drastic consequences of NATO in-tervention, some other events happened at the same time which,because of their social and, particularly, judicial importance,have specifically marked our reality. Among others those were:refusal of a large number of citizens to take part in the Army of

Yugoslavia and ununiform penal policy in this regard. Althoughthese issues are of paramount social and legal importance, thethen authorities did not inform the public truthfully and on time.Also, some non-governmental organisations presented mutuallycontradictory information which created additional confusionand instilled fear among citizens.

Bearing all this in mind, the Centre has decided to breakthe silence and speak about all this openly and responsibly. Tothat end, the Centre had professionally and seriously researched,or better said, threw light on that side of this complex and sensi-tive problem area which relates to the refusal of citizens to takeup arms and go into an unequal and meaningless war againstNATO and the varied conduct of courts in these matters.

For the above stated reasons, the Centre established theproject “Eyes the Colour of the Frontline” which relates to per-sons who did not answer the call-up or fled from the country dur-ing NATO intervention against FR Yugoslavia. This project is aresult of six-months work of a group of Centre’s researchers andexperts. The research was carried out in the course of 2000, andwas preceded by individual studies or some researchers in thesecond half of 1999.

The research results before you show that our legislationin this subject-specific field has been politicised and judicialpractice in that same area uncoordinated. The results of this re-search also include a large number of data on persons who re-fused to join the Yugoslav Army units during NATO interven-tion. Also, several dozen characteristic cases have been ana-lysed.

Bearing in mind all the above said, and particularly thegeneral conditions and circumstances under which mostly youngpeople refused to go into war against NATO, as well as the fact

O~i boje fronta 11

that in the first eight months of their work the courts, especiallythose in the territory of Serbia, did not take account of the true in-dividualisation of the punishment in the mentioned cases, it hap-pened that a large number of these persons were convicted to lon-ger prison sentences and are now waiting to be called to servethem.

For all these reasons, the Centre is pleading for the over-coming of this problem by the granting of pardon to all the im-prisoned and by the suspension of all court proceedings.


I. STANJE DO 24. MARTA1999. GODINE

Nakon Dejtonskog sporazuma (1995. godine) nisu pres-tale delimi~ne mobilizacije na teritoriji SRJ. Teì{te ratnog à-ri{ta preba~eno je na Kosovo. U prvo vreme, vr{i se mobilizacijarezervnog policijskog sastava, jer se smatralo da stanje na Koso-vu treba smiriti policijskim akcijama. Me|utim, od po~eka 1998.godine, kada dolazi do masovnih ubistava civila, vi{e se ukl-ju~uje i VJ, dodu{e u prvo vreme, kao logistika.

Jedan broj mladih ljudi izbegavao je prijem vojnih pozivaza mobilizaciju. Oni su, uglavnom, napu{tali prebivali{ta, a izemlju. Ovo pitanje nije javno problematizovano, verovatno izrazloga politi~kog oportuniteta. @ivelo se, manje-vi{e, u uve-renju da do nekih ve}ih ratnih sukoba ne}e do}i, a da se oruànisukob na Kosovu vodi protiv “{a~ice ostra{}enih terorista”.

Dana 24. marta 1999. godine, me|utim, Savezna vlada do-nosi Odluku o progla{enju nastupanja stanja neposredne ratneopasnosti, a 25. marta 1999. godine, ona donosi Odluku o pro-gla{enju ratnog stanja. Ove odluke glase:

“Na osnovu ~lana 99. ta~ka 10. Ustava Savezne Republike Ju-goslavije, po{to je saslu{ala mi{ljenje predsednika Savezne Re-publike Jugoslavije i predsednika ve}a Savezne skup{tine, Sa-vezna vlada donosi

ODLUKU O PROGLA[ENJU NASTUPANJANEPOSREDNE RATNE OPASNOSTI

1) Progla{ava se nastupanje neposredne ratne opasnosti, jer postojiopasnost od agresije na Saveznu Republiku Jugoslaviju.

2) Ova odluka stupa na snagu odmah.

Ova odluka je objavljena u “Slu`benom listu SRJ”, br. 14/99”.

“Na osnovu ~lana 99. ta~ka 10. Ustava Savezne Republike Ju-goslavije, po{to je saslu{ala mi{ljenje predsednika Savezne Re-publike Jugoslavije i predsednika ve}a Savezne skup{tine, Sa-vezna vlada donosi

ODLUKU O PROGLA[ENJU RATNOG STANJA

1) Progla{ava se ratno stanje jer je otpo~ela agresija na SaveznuRepubliku Jugoslaviju.

2) Ova odluka stupa na snagu odmah.

Ova odluka je objavljena u “Slu`benom listu SRJ”, br.15/99”

Savezna vlada je ove odluke donela dan za danom, naosnovu ovla{}enja iz odredbe ~lana 99. ta~ka 9. Ustava SRJ. Potoj odredbi, Savezna vlada mo`e takve odluke doneti “kadSavezna skup{tina nije u mogu}nosti da se sastane”. Ra{irenoje mi{ljenje da su postojali uslovi da se Savezna skup{tina sasta-ne. Ona se i sastala u uslovima ratnog stanja povodom pitanjapristupanja Jugoslavije Savezu Rusije i Belorusije.

Jasno je da su odmah u~estali pozivi za mobilizaciju. Pozi-vi su, uglavnom, bili pojedina~ni, a u nekim sredinama (Ni{, naprimer) i javni – preko TV i radio stanica. Neodazivanje pozivu


predstavljalo je krivi~no delo, a dezerterstvo, tako|e, krivi~nodelo protiv Vojske Jugoslavije (~lan 214. i 217. KZ SRJ), i to uuslovima ratnog stanja, {to je automatski dovelo do primeneodredbe ~lana 226. Krivi~nog zakona SRJ. To je zna~ilo bitnozao{travanje zapre}ene kazne. Tako, na primer, kazna za neoda-zivanje vojnom pozivu sa predvi|ene kazne do jedne godine,zao{trena je na kaznu zatvora od jedne do deset godina; kazna zakrijenje da bi se izbegla vojna slu`ba, predvi|ena od tri mesecado pet godina, zao{trena je na najmanje pet godina ili kaznu zat-vora u trajanju od 20 godina, koliko se predvi|a i za lica koja sunapustila zemlju ili ostala u inostranstvu iz istog razloga. Ta-ko|e, u slu~ajevima primene odredbe ~lana 226. stav 2. i 3. u vezisa odredbom ~lana 214. stav 2. i 3. i ~lana 217. stav 3. , 4. i 5. KZSRJ, ne moè se izre}i uslovna osuda. Jer, prema odredbi ~lana53. stav 3. KZ SRJ, uslovna osuda se ne moè izre}i za krivi~nadela za koja se ni ublaàvanjem kazne ne moè izre}i kazna man-ja od jedne godine zatvora. To je slu~aj iz ~lana 43. stav 1. ta~ka1. KZ SRJ, kojim se ure|uje da, ako je za krivi~no delo kao naj-manja mera kazne propisan zatvor u trajanju od tri ili vi{e godina,kazna se moè ublaìti do jedne godine.

O~i boje fronta 15

II. KRIVI^NO ZAKONODAVSTVO SRJ

Odredbe ~lana 214. i 217. KZ SRJ, glase:

"Neodazivanje pozivu i izbegavanje vojne slu`be

^lan 214.

1) Ko bez opravdanog razloga ne do|e u odre|eno vreme naregrutovanje, radi saop{tenja ratnog rasporeda ili prijema oru-`ja, ili na sluènje vojnog roka, vojnu ve`bu ili drugu vojnuslu`bu, iako je bio pozvan pojedina~nim ili op{tim pozivom,kazni}e se nov~anom kaznom ili zatvorom do jedne godine.

2) Ko se krije da bi izbegao obavezu iz stava 1. ovog ~lana, iako jebio pozvan pojedina~nim ili op{tim pozivom, kazni}e se za-tvorom od tri meseca do pet godina.

3) Ko napusti zemlju ili ostane u inostranstvu da bi izbegao re-grutovanje, ili sluènje vojnog roka, vojnu ve`bu ili drugu vojnuslu`bu, kazni}e se zatvorom od jedne do deset godina.

4) Ko poziva ili podsti~e vi{e lica za izvr{enje dela iz st. 1. do 3.ovog ~lana, kazni}e se za delo iz stava 1. zatvorom do tri godine,a za delo iz st. 2. i 3. zatvorom najmanje jednu godinu.

5) U~inilac dela iz st. 2. i 3. ovog ~lana koji se dobrovoljno javinadle`nom dràvnom organu moè se blaè kazniti ili oslo-boditi od kazne."

"Samovoljno udaljenjei bekstvo iz Vojske Jugoslavije

^lan 217.

1) Vojno lice koje samovoljno napusti svoju jedinicu ili slu`bu i nevrati se na du`nost u roku od deset dana ili se u istom roku nevrati na du`nost sa dozvoljenog bavljenja van jedinice ili slu`be,kazni}e se zatvorom do jedne godine.

2) Kaznom iz stava 1. ovog ~lana kazni}e se i vojno lice koje vi{eod dva puta i kra}e od deset dana nedozvoljeno boravi van svojejedinice ili slu`be, kao i vojno lice koje samovoljno napustisvoju jedinicu ili slu`bu za vreme izvr{enja va`nog zadatka ilipove}anog stepena borbene gotovosti jedinice.

3) Vojno lice koje se krije da bi izbeglo slu`bu u Vojsci Ju-goslavije, ili koje samovoljno napusti svoju jedinicu ili slu`bu ine vrati se na du`nost u roku od trideset dana ili se u istom rokune vrati sa dozvoljenog bavljenja van jedinice ili slu`be, kazni}ese zatvorom od {est meseci do pet godina.

4) Vojno lice koje napusti zemlju ili ostane u inostranstvu da biizbeglo slu`bu u Vojsci Jugoslavije, kazni}e se zatvorom naj-manje jednu godinu.

5) Vojno lice koje priprema bekstvo u inostranstvo da bi izbegloslu`bu u Vojsci Jugoslavije, kazni}e se zatvorom od {est mesecido pet godina.

6) U~inilac dela iz st. 3. i 4. ovog ~lana koji se dobrovoljno javinadle`nom dràvnom organu moè se blaè kazniti. ”

Kako je predmet na{eg razmatranja izvr{enje ovih dela zavreme ratnog stanja, odlu~ivanje o visini kazne vr{i se premaodredbi ~lana 226. KZ SRJ, koja glasi:

O~i boje fronta 17

"Ka`njavanje za krivi~na delaizvr{ena za vreme ratnog stanjaili u slu~aju neposredne ratne opasnosti

^lan 226.

1) Za krivi~no delo iz …~lana 214. stav 1. , ~lana 217. stav 1. i2…ovog zakona, ako je izvr{eno za vreme ratnog stanja ili uslu~aju neposredne ratne opasnosti, u~inilac }e se kazniti za-tvorom od jedne do deset godina.

2) Za krivi~no delo iz…~lana 217. stav 5…ovog zakona, ako jeizvr{eno za vreme ratnog stanja ili u slu~aju neposredne ratneopasnosti, u~inilac }e se kazniti zatvorom najmanje tri godine.

3) Za krivi~no delo iz …~lana 214. st. 2. i 3, ~lana 217. st. 3. i 4…ovog zakona, ako je izvr{eno za vreme ratnog stanja ili u slu~ajuneposredne ratne opasnosti, u~inilac }e se kazniti zatvoromnajmanje pet godina ili zatvorom od dvadeset godina. ”

Stanje neposredne ratne opasnosti progla{eno je 24. marta1999. godine, a ratno stanje je trajalo od 25. marta do 24. juna1999. godine.

Radnje krivi~nog dela iz ~lana 214. KZ SRJ su: (1) ne-odazivanje, (2) izbegavanje, i (3) pozivanje i podsticanje vi{e oddva lica na vr{enje ovog krivi~nog dela, a u krivi~nom delu iz~lana 217. KZ SRJ, radnje su: (1) samovoljno udaljenje vi{e od10 dana, (2) vi{e od dva puta nedozvoljenog boravka van je-dinice do 10 dana, (3) samovoljno napu{tanje za vreme izvr{enjava`nog zadatka ili pove}anog stepena borbene gotovosti je-dinice; i (3) bekstvo. Me|utim, ako se u~inilac dela dobrovoljnojavi nadle`nom organu, mo`e se bla`e kazniti ili osloboditi odkazne za kvalifikovane oblike krivi~nog dela. Kvalifikovanioblici ovih dela su, za delo iz ~lana 214. KZ SRJ: (1) krijenje, i


(2) bekstvo u inostranstvo, ili ostajanje u inostranstvu, a za deloiz ~lana 217. KZ SRJ: (1) krijenje, ili ako se ne vrati na du`nost uroku od 30 dana, (2) bekstvo u inostranstvo, ili ostajanje uinostranstvu. Za ovo delo i pripremanje bekstva se ka`njava.Ako se u~inilac dela, me|utim, dobrovoljno javi nadle`nomorganu, moè se blaè kazniti za kvalifikovane oblike.

Kako nisu postavljene jasne granice izme|u radnje izstava 1. (nedolazak bez opravdanog razloga…) i stava 2. (krije seda bi izbegao obavezu…) ~lana 214. KZ SRJ, u pomenutom vre-menskom periodu, vojni tuìoci su, po pravilu, sve vojne obvez-nike koji nisu do{li u ratnu jedinicu, optuìvali za teì oblik krivi-~nog dela, odnosno optuìvali su ih za skrivanje, iako za to nisuimali nikakve pouzdane podatke. Tako su ovi vojni obvezniciodgovarali za delo iz stava 2. ~lana 214. , a u vezi sa ~lanom 226.KZ SRJ. To je imalo za posledicu da se ovim licima nije moglaizre}i manja kazna od jedne godine zatvora, bez obzira poslekoliko dana se neko od njih pojavio u jedinici, odnosno koji surazlozi bili u pitanju za njegovo neodazivanje. Izvesnih odstu-panja ima u praksi vojnog okruga u Podgorici. Na tom podru~ju,sudovi su izricali za prisutna lica, po pravilu, mese~ne kazne.

Bitan, prvi elemenat za krivi~no delo iz ~lana 214. KZ SRJje neodazivanje bez opravdanog razloga. Opravdan razlog jevezan za dve okolnosti: (1) nepostojanje saznanja o pozivu, i (2)spre~enost da se odaziva pozivu. Najvi{e je sporova bilo oko~injenice da li su vojni obveznici imali saznanja o pozivu. Sudovisu stajali na stanovi{tu da su svi obveznici imali saznanje osvojim obavezama s obzirom da im je bilo poznato da je zemljabila u ratnom stanju. Neko pravno upori{te za ovu tezu stoji uodredbi ~lana 7. Zakona o odbrani, koja glasi:

“U slu~aju napada na zemlju, svi gra|ani u zemlji i inostranstvu,komande, jedinice i ustanove Vojske Jugoslavije, predstavnici

O~i boje fronta 19

dràvnih organa i organizacija i organi upravljanja u preduze-}ima i drugim pravnim licima, du`ni su da, odmah po saznanju,ne ~ekaju}i poziv ili nare|enje, postupe po svom ratnom ra-sporedu i obavezama utvr|enim Planom odbrane zemlje, odno-sno izvodom iz tog plana i odlukama i merama Savezne vlade. ”

Me|utim, smatramo da je ovo pravno stanovi{te neprihva-tljivo, obzirom da nije bila progla{ena op{ta mobilizacija, ve}delimi~na. Postupanje na na~in predvi|en ovom odredbom do-velo bi do haoti~nog stanja. Dakle, jedino je ispravno pravnostanovi{te da se utvrdi ~injenica da li je vojni obveznik imaosaznanje o vojnom pozivu.

Obzirom da je vojnim obveznicima, po pravilu, poslatpojedina~ni poziv, u postupku je trebalo utvrditi da li je taj pozivuru~en. Pri tome, moraju se u obzir uzeti kriterijumi utvr|eniodredbama Zakona o op{tem upravnom postupku, jer se radi oobaveznom li~nom dostavljanju iz ~lana 87. tog zakona. Sudovisu, me|utim, smatrali da je poziv uru~en ako je vojni pozivarnekom od ~lanova porodice, ili susedima, ostavio obave{tenje ovojnom pozivu. [tavi{e, sudovi su ovu ~injenicu uzimali kaodokazanu i tada kada se vojni obveznik sa zaka{njenjem javiosvojoj ratnoj jedinici, bez obzira na njegovu izjavu da se javioodmah po saznanju za poziv! Navodimo primer: Optuèni D. R,star 29 godina, carinik, vojni obveznik, osu|en je na kaznuzatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne) godine, jer je, skrivaju}i se,izbegao vojnu slu`bu, tako {to je promenio boravi{te a da otome nije obavestio nadle`ne organe. Optuèni se branio danije znao za poziv, da je redovno bio na slu`bi u Carini, a da jejedno vreme spavao kod devojke. Kada je 4. aprila 1999. godinesaznao za poziv, jer je obave{tenje ostavljeno na vratima stana,odmah se javio u Vojni odsek. Sud nije uvaìo ovu odbranu,smatraju}i da je optuèni “…dobro znao da je po ratnoj formaciji


vojni policajac, {to zna~i da je pouzdano mogao o~ekivati po-zivanje u VJ upravo u prvim danima rata”. Me|utim, ima islu~ajeva obustavljanja krivi~nog postupka. Navodimo primer:Protiv vojnog obveznika B. [, star 37 godina, pokrenut je kri-vi~ni postupak, jer se 29. 31999. godine nije javio u ratnu je-dinicu, a da mu se poziv nije mogao uru~iti, jer je promenioboravi{te bez prijave nadle`nom organu. Postupak je obu-stavljen odustankom vojnog tuìoca, koji je u toku pripremaza glavni pretres utvrdio da je optuèni uredno izvr{io pro-menu boravi{ta, te da nije mogao da bude upoznat sa mo-bilizacijskim pozivom.

Drugi osnov opravdanog razloga jeste spre~enost. Naj-~e{}i razlog bila je bolest. Me|utim, sudovi nisu uvaàvali medi-cinsku dokumentaciju gra|anskih bolnica. Za njih je bio mero-davan samo nalaz i mi{ljenje Vojnolekarske komisije. Tako|e,nije uvaàvan kao opravdan razlog i okolnost da su vojni ob-veznici bili na putu van mesta prebivali{ta, u selu, na primer, gdene postoje telefonske veze.

Napu{tanje zemlje ili ostajanje u inostranstvu izazivalo jeodràvanje glavnog pretresa u odsutnosti okrivljenog. U ovimokolnostima su bitna dva pitanja (1) da li je lice u inostranstvuimalo saznanje o vojnom pozivu, i (2) da li je postojala namerada se izbegne odazivanje vojnom pozivu. Po pravilu, sudovi su apriori smatrali da su sva lica obave{tena o vojnom pozivu samimtim {to je progla{eno ratno stanje! Da li se neko nalazi u ino-stranstvu zakju~ivalo se na osnovu bilo kakvog svedo~enja blis-kih srodnika ili drugih lica. Navodimo jedan slu~aj: Optuèni I.J., star 25 godina, trgovac, vojni obveznik, osu|en je u od-sutnosti na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 6 ({est) godina, jer je,da bi izbegao vojnu slu`bu, dana 22. 3. 1999. godine, napustiozemlju. Sud je doneo presudu na osnovu izjava roditelja op-tuènog da im se sin nalazi u inostranstvu i fotokopije paso{a

O~i boje fronta 21

koju je priloìo branilac (!?) kojom se dokazuje da se optuèninalazi u inostranstvu. Me|utim, bilo je i izuzetaka, kada jeobustavljen krivi~ni postupak. Navodimo primer: Protiv vojnogobveznika S. M, star 31 godinu, pokrenut je krivi~ni po-stupak jer se nije javio u vojnu jedinicu 25. marta 1999.godine, iako je za to znao preko brata, koji je poziv primio ibez obzira na upozorenje pozivara da se mora javiti na vojnipoziv. Postupak je obustavljen odustankom vojnog tuìoca,koji je utvrdio da optuèni od 1993. godine ne ìvi u Ju-goslaviji, te da nije mogao biti upoznat sa sadrìnom poziva.

Druga okolnost-namera nije se posebno dokazivala; u sva-kom slu~aju se uzimala kao dokazana ~injenica da je namera po-stojala. Posebno ukazujemo na slu~ajeve povla~enja vojske saborbenog poloàja bez naredbe stare{ine. Sudovi su ogla{avalikrivim vojne obveznike, koji su, zajedno sa celom jedinicom,napu{tali borbena mesta zbog borbenih dejstava neprijateljskihsnaga, jer su to uradili bez nare|enja svojih stare{ina. ûdno je,me|utim, da su i stare{ine sa tim vojnicima napu{tali borbene po-loàje, a nisu krivi~no odgovarali. Navodimo primer: OptuèniG. \, star 35 godina, radnik, vojni obveznik, osu|en je na je-dinstvenu kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne) godine i 6({est) meseci – za delo iz ~lan 217. KZ SRJ na 1 godinu i zadelo te{ke kra|e iz ~lana 166. KZS na jednu godinu, jer je sa-movoljno napustio jedinicu, te da je na Kosovu prisvojio ve-liku koli~inu robe. Optuèni se brani tako {to iznosi da im je 23.5. 1999. godine stare{ina rekao da su sve ostale ~ete samovoljnonapustile borbena mesta, a da je ostala samo njihova ~eta. Tada jeneko rekao da idu i oni, {to su i u~inili… Na glavnom pretresu sustare{ine optuènog potvrdile da su “jedinice tih vojnika na-pustile borbene linije i oni nisu mogli da ih zadrè”, kao i to da“nikom od vojnika nije izdavao nare|enje da ostanu na poloàju ivrate se na mesto razme{taja, jer je i on sam po{ao sa njima”.


III. POSTUPANJE SUDOVA

Kaznena politika nije bila ujedna~ena. Prvih dana su-dovanja, vojni sudovi su izricali drasti~ne kazne, delom zbogneiskustva sudija, delom da bi se uticalo na odziv vojnih ob-veznika. Kasnije, Vrhovni vojni sud je zauzeo kriterijume izri-canja kazni, pa se, unekoliko, ujedna~ila kaznena politika. Idalje, nedovoljno se vodilo ra~una o individualizaciji kazne.[tavi{e, i obrasci presuda su bili {tampani radi ekspeditivnostisu|enja. Karakteristi~no je, na primer, da je jo{ prilikom su|enjalicima koja su se posle desetak dana od obave{tenja o mo-bilizaciji javila u svoje jedinice, od strane sudija koji su postupaliu njihovim predmetima, javno saop{tavano da }e izricane kaznebiti posle rata opro{tene dono{enjem Zakona o amnestiji, ilipomilovanjem. Naàlost, do toga nije do{lo, pa su ti ljudi, koji sunakon su|enja odmah oti{li na vr{enje ratnih zadataka, dovedeniu veoma te{ku situaciju, jer moraju i}i na izdràvanje zatvorskekazne. Naime, njihove kazne se vi{e ne mogu ublaìti u postupkuvanrednog ublaàvanja, jer se radi o delima gde se ni ubla-àvanjem ne moè izre}i manja kazna od godinu dana zatvora(za dela iz ~lana 214. stav 2. i 3. u vezi sa ~lanom 226. stav 2. i 3.KZ SRJ). Tako je ispalo da su ovi mladi ljudi, zbog pogre{nepravne kvalifikacije dela i njenog nekriti~nog prihvatanja odstrane vojnih sudova, dovedeni u bezizlaznu situaciju. O~igled-no, nema raspoloènja da se donese Zakon o amnestiji, a i da se

da masovno pomilovanje, jer su presudni politi~ki stavovi i jakapolarizacija izme|u onog {ta je “patriotsko” a {ta je “izdaj-ni~ko”!

Prvostepeni sudovi su licima koja su se bilo kada javila ujedinicu, uglavnom izricali kazne zatvora u proseku od po jednugodinu za krivi~na dela iz ~lana 214. stav 1. i 2. i 217. stav 1. i 2.KZ SRJ. Me|utim, na podru~ju Crne Gore, za ova krivi~na dela,izricale su se kazne u proseku od 3 do 6 meseci, jer su sudovi me-njali kvalifikaciju dela iz stava 2. u stav 1. Dok, za lica u odsust-vu, izricane su visoke kazne zatvora, u proseku od 6-7 godina.

Stvarno nadleàn sud za krivi~na dela iz ~lana 214. i 217.KZJ je vojni sud. Stvarna nadle`nost se ceni prema odredbamaZakona o vojnim sudovima. Prema odredbi ~lana 9. t. 1. Zakonao vojnim sudovima, vojni sudovi sude za krivi~na dela koja u~inevojna lica, a u slu~ajevima predvi|enim ovim zakonom – i zakrivi~na dela koja u~ine druga lica. Tako, prema odredbi ~lana10. stav 1. t. 8. ovog zakona, vojni sudovi sude civilnim licima zakrivi~na dela iz ~lana 2o1. do 236. KZ SRJ. To zna~i da su vojnisudovi stvarno nadle`ni da sude svim licima koja u~ine krivi~nadela neodazivanja pozivu i izbegavanje vojne slu`be iz ~lana214. KZ SRJ i samovoljno udaljenje i bekstvo iz Vojske Ju-goslavije iz ~lana 217. KZ SRJ.

Mesna nadle`nost se utvr|uje prema odredbama Zakonao krivi~nom postupku, Krivi~nog zakona SRJ i Zakona o vojnimsudovima. Prema odredbi ~lana 26. stav 1. ZKP, po pravilu, mes-no je nadleàn sud na ~ijem je podru~ju delo u~injeno ili poku{a-no. Dok, prema odredbi ~lana 32. Krivi~nog zakona SRJ, kri-vi~no delo je izvr{eno kako u mestu gde je u~inilac radio ili je bioduàn da radi, tako i u mestu gde je posledica nastupila. I, pripre-manje i poku{aj smatraju se izvr{enim kako u mestu gde je izvr-{ilac radio, tako i u mestu gde je po njegovom umi{ljaju posledi-


ca trebalo da nastupi ili je mogla da nastupi. U svetlu ovih zakon-skih odredbi, mesna nadle`nost za krivi~na dela iz ~lana 214. KZSRJ ceni se, po pravilu, prema mestu gde je poziv trebalo da seuru~i, dok za krivi~no delo iz ~lana 217. KZ SRJ ceni se, po pra-vilu, prema mestu gde je do{lo do napu{tanja jedinice, odnosnogde je trebalo da se vrati vojno lice nakon odobrenog odsustva.

Prema odredbi ~lana 8. Zakona o vojnim sudovima posto-je tri prvostepena vojna suda: Vojni sud u Beogradu, koji pokrivapodru~je Prve armije; Vojni sud u Podgorici, koji pokriva po-dru~je Druge armije; i Vojni sud u Ni{u, koji pokriva podru~jeTre}e armije. Me|utim, za vreme ratnog stanja, ovi sudovi pre-staju sa radom, s tim da se prvostepeni vojni sudovi formiraju prikomandama vojnih okruga, divizija, korpusa, armija, komandiratnog vazduhoplovstva i protivvazdu{ne odbrane i komandiratne mornarice. Vrhovni vojni sud, me|utim, nastavlja rad usedi{tu [taba Vrhovne komande (~lan 74. Zakona o vojnimsudovima). Za vreme ratnog stanja od 25. marta do 24. juna1999. godine, formirano je 20 ratnih sudova, od toga u Beogradu5 prvostepenih ratnih vojnih sudova, u Novom Sadu 2 ratna su-da…. Odeljenja Vrhovnog vojnog suda formirana su u Ni{u iPodgorici. Prema odredbi ~lana 75. Zakona o vojnim sudovima,za vreme ratnog stanja postavljenja, udaljenja od du`nosti i ra-zre{enje od du`nosti predsednika, sudija i sudija-porotnika voj-nih sudova vr{i predsednik Republike, na predlog na~elnika[taba Vrhovne komande. Po prestanku ratnog stanja, svi krivi~nipredmeti su raspore|eni u pomenuta tri vojna suda u Beogradu,Podgorici i Ni{u.

Za sudije i vojne tu`ioce su postavljena lica – vojni ob-veznici prema ve} ranije utvr|enom ratnom rasporedu. U ve}embroju, ta lica u svom gra|anskom statusu se nisu bavila sudskomdelatno{}u. To je dovelo, ne samo u po~etku, do nesnala`enja

O~i boje fronta 25

kako u pogledu primene procesnog prava, tako i u pogledupravne kvalifikacije dela i kaznenog tretmana, odnosno odlu-~ivanja.

Prvih dana ratnog stanja po~ela su i prva su|enja, jer su is-tovremeno sa vojnim sudovima, i u okviru istih jedinica i koman-di vojnih okruga, formirani i organi vojnog tu`ila{tva.


IV. ZAPA@ANJAO KRIVI^NOM POSTUPKU

Savezna vlada je svojom Uredbom o primenjivanju Za-kona o krivi~nom postupku za vreme ratnog stanja (“Slu`benilist SRJ”, br. 21/99), izvr{ila bitne izmene u Zakonu o krivi~nompostupku. Tako, za okrivljenog u bekstvu, uspostavlja se i mesnanadle`nost suda gde bude uhva}en, ili gde se sam prijavio (~lan2. Uredbe); skida se obaveza pribavljanja odobrenja za krivi~nogonjenje ako se radi o krivi~nim delima iz glave XV (protivustavnog ure|enja…), glave XVI (protiv ~ove~nosti…), glaveXX (protiv Vojske Jugoslavije, dakle i za krivi~na dela iz ~lana214. i 217. KZ SRJ) i za krivi~na dela za koja je propisana kaznazatvora od najmanje 5 godina (~lan 3); ne moè se traìti izuze}ezbog sumnje u nepristrasnost (~lan 4); pojedine istra`ne radnjemoè voditi i organ unutra{njih poslova, koji u hitnim slu-~ajevima te radnje moè voditi i bez zahteva javnog tuìoca (~lan6); organi gonjenja mogu izvr{iti pretres lica i stana bez sudskognaloga, ako postoji sumnja da su izvr{ena gorepomenuta kri-vi~na dela (iz glave XV, XVI, XX…) (~lan 7); pritvor od 30 danamoè odrediti i organ unutra{njih poslova (~lan 8); javni tuìlacmoè podi}i optu`nicu bez sprovo|enja istrage i bez saglasnostiistra`nog sudije (~lan 9); vreme od uru~enja optu`nice do glav-nog pretresa ne moè biti kra}e od ~etrdesetosam ~asova (~lan10); prigovor na optu`nicu ne uti~e na odràvanje glavnog pre-

tresa (~lan 11); u slu~aju prekida pretresa duè od mesec dana, iliu slu~aju izmene ve}a, novi pretres ne mora te}i iznova (~lan 12);rok za àlbu je tri dana (~lan 15)…

U pogledu krivi~nog dela iz ~lana 214. KZ SRJ, pokrenutisu i krivi~ni postupci protiv vojnih obveznika koji nisu primilipoziv, ali po saznanju su se javili nadle`nim vojnim organima.Zanimljivo je da su pokrenuti krivi~ni postupci i protiv lica, kojisu se odmah javila u svoje ratne jedinice, ali nadle`ni organi,zbog svojih propusta i neaùrnosti, nisu imali saznanja o tome.Protiv takvih lica, iako osnovana sumnja nije bila potkrepljenaodgovaraju}im dokazima, podignuta je optu`ba za kvalifikovanioblik krivi~nog dela. Kada su takva lica pritvarana, utvr|ivalo seda su sve vreme bili u svojim ratnim jedinicama. Naàlost, brojtih slu~ajeva nije mali. Nije poznato da su preduzimane mereprotiv lica u nadle`nim vojnim organima, koji su svoj posaoneodgovorno obavljali. .

U pogledu krivi~nog dela iz ~lana 217. KZ SRJ, pokrenutisu krivi~ni postupci i protiv lica koja su se iz svojih jedinica,~esto iz privatnih ku}a gde su bili sme{tena, odlazili u pro-davnicu po pivo, ili, prolaze}i pored svojih mesta boravi{ta, svra-}ali da se raspituju za svoju porodicu.

Poseban je slu~aj u Crnoj Gori. Zbog zao{trenih politi~kihodnosa izme|u saveznih i republi~kih vlasti, te i republi~kihvlasti i VJ, poklapali su se vojni pozivi i ve} podeljena re{enja oradnoj obavezi. Obveznici su bili u rascepu: da li da prihvatere{enje o radnoj obavezi i sa~uvaju svoja radna mesta, ili dakrivi~no odgovaraju za neodazivanje pozivu vojnih vlasti, ili dase na vojni poziv odazivaju i ne prihvate re{enje o radnoj obavezi~ime su dovodili u pitanje svoje radno mesto. îni se da jeopredeljenje uglavnom bilo na osnovu politi~kog stava, jer biloje dosta slu~ajeva pokretanja krivi~nog postupka protiv onih kojisu prednost dali radnoj obavezi.


Istra`ne radnje su, neretko, vodili oficiri bezbednosti, uskladu sa ovla{}enjima iz ~lana 6. pomenute Uredbe, ali dosta~esto na na~in suprotan odredbama ZKP o saslu{anju okriv-ljenog, o upozorenju na njegova prava u pogledu odbrane, kao i upogledu ~injenica koje nisu bile bitne za krivi~no delo za koje jeokr. optuèn. Prakti~no su stvarana nezakonita dosijea o li~nostisa politi~kim motivima. Neretko se htelo dokazati da su vr{enjuovakvih krivi~nih dela sklone li~nosti podlo`ne porocima (drogai sl. ) i opozicionom delovanju.

Me|utim, ~esto su vojni tuìoci, na osnovu odredbe ~lana9. citirane Uredbe, podizali neposredne optu`nice, bez sprovo-|enja istrage, bez obzira {to se radilo o krivi~nim delima za kojasu bile zapre}ene izuzetne visoke kazne zatvora.

Prema odredbi ~lana 70. stav 2. ZKP, po podizanju op-tu`nice, za pomenuta krivi~na dela, odmah je postavljan branilacpo slu`benoj du`nosti, jer je u po~etku veoma mali broj optu-ènih uzimao branioca po svom slobodnom izboru. Advokati supostavljani iz spiskova koji su sa~injeni od strane advokatskihkomora. Advokatska komora u Beogradu je, na primer, stavila naraspolaganje vojnim sudovima oko 50 advokata, koji su pruàlibesplatnu pravnu pomo}. Me|utim, sudovima se dobrovoljnojavio i jo{ jedan broj advokata po svojoj èlji, izjasniv{i se,tako|e, da }e pruàti besplatnu pravnu pomo}. Naj~e{}e, advo-kati su po pokrenutom krivi~nom postupku, obave{tavani tele-fonskim putem da su postavljeni za branioce po slu`benoj du-`nosti; branjenike su sretali na zakazanom glavnom pretresu;znatno su bile oteàne komunikacije izme|u branioca i optu-ènog. Optuèni je iz pritvora doveden na glavni pretres gde jenaj~e{}e odmah priznavao izvr{enje krivi~nog dela.

Veliki broj su|enja odràn je u odsutnosti optuènih, bezda se vodi ra~una o uslovima predvi|enim u odredbi ~lana 300.

O~i boje fronta 29

ZKP, obzirom da Uredbom ova odredba nije stavljena van snage,niti je izmenjena. Prema odredbi ~lana 300. stav 3. ZKP, op-tuènom se moè suditi u odsutnosti (1) ako je u bekstvu, ili (2)ako je nedostiàn dràvnim organima, a postoje va`ni razlozi damu se sudi iako je odsutan. Nije se utvr|ivalo da li je optuèni ubekstvu – ta ~injenica se podrazumevala. Pokaza}e se da je bilobrojnih slu~ajeva da vojni obveznici, bez svoje krivice, nisuprimili poziv, da nisu bili obave{teni, odnosno da su imali op-ravdan razlog da se nisu odazvali pozivu. înjenica o bekstvu je,manje-vi{e, bila opravdano pretpostavljena za one koji su na-pu{tali jedinicu… Po pravilu, u predmetima nema dokaza o tomeda su optuèni, kojima se sudi u odsutnosti, stvarno nedosti`nidràvnim organima! Kona~no, sudovi ne obrazlaù koji je oso-bito vaàn razlog za su|enje u odsutnosti!? Zbog takvog ne-gativnog odnosa prema pravima “odsutnog” i, moè se re~i,prema samom optuènom, su|enja su bila veoma kratka, a izre-~ene kazne izuzetno visoke! Valjda, ra~unalo se da }e zaintere-sovano osu|eno lice koristiti svoje pravo iz ~lana 410. stav 1.ZKP i traìti ponavljanje postupka. Me|utim, treba imati u viduda se ponavljanje postupka moè traìti samo u roku od jednegodine po saznanju o postojanju presude kojom je osu|en uodsutnosti. Ta neodre|enost u izrazu “po saznanju”, neretkopredstavlja kobnu ~injenicu, a osu|eni se, obi~no, zbog visinekazne, pritvara! Navodimo jedan primer ponovljenog krivi~nogpostupka: Optuèni N. R, star 21 godinu, radnik bez za-poslenja, vojni obveznik, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznuzatvora u trajanju od 8 (osam) godina, jer je pobegao iz vojnejedinice. Nalazi se na izdràvanju kazne od 25. februara2000. godine. Prvostepeni sud je dozvolio ponavljanje po-stupka, dostavio je optu`nicu, prekinuo izvr{enje kazne iodredio pritvor do zavr{etka glavnog pretresa. Krivi~ni po-stupak je u toku.


Zbog èlje da budu {to ekspeditivniji, vojni sudovi se nisumnogo upu{tali u provere odbrane optuènih u pogledu razlogazbog kojih se nisu odazvali pozivima, kao ni u pogledu ~injeniceda li su, ili nisu, primili pozive za javljanje u jedinice. Veliki jebroj obveznika koji su promenili svoje adrese, odselili se odroditelja, i sl. , ali nisu obavestili vojne odseke o promeni adrese.Ta ~injenica je sudu bila dovoljna da optuène oglasi krivim.Ta~no je da postoji obaveza prijave adrese boravka i vojnimorganima, ali nepostupanje predstavlja samo prekr{aj i ne do-kazuje i umi{ljaj vojnog obveznika da se neopravdano ne oda-ziva vojnom pozivu. Neodazivanje pozivu mora da predstavljavoljnu radnju tog obveznika da on, iako je uredno primio poziv,ne èli da se tom pozivu odazove. Sud, dakle, treba da dokazujevinost, a ne da a priori smatra obveznika vinim, ako on samsuprotno ne dokaè.

Drasti~niji je, me|utim, slu~aj u Ni{u gde je pozivanjeobveznika vr{eno preko medija – lokalne TV i radio stanice kojesu objavile spisak vojnih po{ta za koje vaì mobilizacija. Izve{tajtih medijskih ku}a uzimao se kao dokaz da je optuèni biouredno pozvan za mobilizaciju. Dakle, uzima se kao utvr|ena~injenica da je vojni obveznik stalno bio na podru~ju gledanosti islu{anosti ovih medijskih ku}a, te da svaki stanovnik obaveznogleda i slu{a (ili mora da gleda i slu{a) te TV i radio stanice!?

O okolnosti da li je optuèni stvarno znao za poziv zavojnu slu`bu, po pravilu, saslu{ani su pozivari, kao i ~lanovi uèporodice optuènog. Me|utim, ~lanovi uè porodice nisu upo-zoravani da su povla{}eni svedoci, te da ne moraju svedo~iti(~lan 227. ZKP). Iz priznanja ~lanova uè porodice da su po-zivari stvarno do{li da predaju poziv, sud je izvla~io zaklju~ak dasu optuèni znali za poziv, te da su se krili, {to je povla~ilo op-tuìvanje za teì – kvalifikovani oblik krivi~nog dela iz ~lana214. KZ SRJ.

O~i boje fronta 31

V. BROJ LICA KOJA SE NISUODAZVALA VOJNOM POZIVU IKOJA SU POBEGLA IZ VOJSKEJUGOSLAVIJE

Javnosti nisu prezentirani podaci o broju poslatih pozivaza mobilizaciju, kao ni podaci o broju osoba koje se nisu oda-zvale vojnom pozivu. Za javnost je plasiran podatak da je oda-zivanje vojnom pozivu iznad svih o~ekivanja, a da je broj de-zertera “bezna~ajan”1 i da se radi o visokom patriotskom ~inu. Sdruge strane, na teritoriji Republike Crne Gore, javio se problem“ciljnog mobilisanja”, prete`no onih iz redova politi~kih gru-pacija koje su imale kriti~ki stav prema zvani~noj politici SRJ.Kao protiv-meru, vlasti u Crnoj Gori su uveli radnu obavezu.Visoki zvani~nici su javno odbijali prijem vojnih poziva. U jakopolitizovanoj atmosferi, ve}i broj ljudi je ohrabrivan da se neodaziva vojnom pozivu. Taj politi~ki problem je, po okon~anjuratnog stanja, re{en na taj na~in {to je Skup{tina Crne Goredonela Zakon o amnestiji2 o ~ijoj pravnoj prirodi je bilo manjepravne, a vi{e politi~ke rasprave.

1 “Danas” od 2. septembra 1999. godine. Predsednik Vrhovnog vojnog suda u Be-ogradu, general Miloš Gojkovi} izjavljuje : “Velika je sre}a da je broj dezertera uposlednjem ratu bio bezna~ ajan u odnosu na broj pozvanih…”

Tako|e, i o broju lica protiv kojih je poveden krivi~nipostupak zbog neodazivanja pozivu i izbegavanju vojne slu`be(~lan 214. KZ SRJ) i samovoljnom udaljenju i bekstvu iz VJ(~lan 217. KZ SRJ) ima raznih naga|anja. Tako, u “Intervjuudana” na Radio B2-92, predsednik Jugoslovenskog komitetapravnika za ljudska prava, tvrdi da prema njihovim saznanjima“u Srbiji ima 11.000-14.000 pokrenutih postupaka, s tim {to jo{nisu stigle prijave iz svih vojnih komandi, i imamo podatak izCrne Gore da je podneto 14.000 optu`nica i to je potvrdila VladaCrne Gore i Helsin{ki odbor za ljudska prava u Crnoj Gori”3. Istali~nost, pozivaju}i se na izjavu na~elnika pravne slu`be Ge-neral{taba Vojske Jugoslavije (sada biv{eg), iznosi podatak o28.000 podignutih optu`nica protiv lica koja su izvr{ila vojnakrivi~na dela4. Ova tvrdnja je potpuno neodre|ena, jer ne pre-cizira o kojim se krivi~nim delima radi (“vojna krivi~na dela”),za koji period izvr{enja krivi~nih dela se odnosi (“trenutno uJugoslaviji je podignuto”), koji broj lica se krivi~no goni(“28.000 optu`nica”)... Bez obzira na politizaciju pitanja oda-zivanja vojnom pozivu u Crnoj Gori, sa rezervom treba primitipodatak o podignutim optu`nicama u broju od 14.000! Tako|etreba imati u vidu da se nadle`nost podgori~kog vojnog sudaprostire i na deo Srbije.

O~i boje fronta 33

2 Zakon je objavljen u «Slu`benom listu Republike Crne Gore, br. 44/99 od 22.novembra 1999. godine. Ovim zakonom osloba|aju se od krivi noggonjenja i os-loba|aju se izvršenja krivi~nih sankcija po pravosna`nim presudama lica koja su uperiodu od 1. juna 1998. godine do 30. juna 1999. godine izvr{ila krivi nadela: ne-odazivanje pozivu i izbegavanje vojne slu`be – ~ lan214, izbegavanje vojne slu`beonesposobljavanjem ili obmanom – ~ lan215, protivzakonito osloba|anje od vojneslu`be – 216, samovoljno udaljenje i bekstvo iz VJ – ~lan217, izbegavanje propisa ipregleda – ~lan 218, neizvršavanje materijalne obaveze – ~ lan 219, propisanaKrivi~nim zakonom Savezne Republike Jugoslavije.

3 Jugoslovenski komitet pravnika za ljudska prava: «Amnestija – kampanja, zakon,slu~ajevi», Beograd, str. 71.

4 Isto, str. 94.

Da bi imali ve}e razumevanje prema te{ko}ama utvr|iva-nja pribli`nog broja osoba koje se nisu odazvale vojnom pozivuu vremenu dok je trajalo ratno stanje (25. mart do 24. jun 1999.godine), treba imati u vidu faze krivi~nog gonjenja i postupka:

1) predkrivi~ni postupak je faza u kojoj upravne vlasti podnosekrivi~ne prijave tuìla{tvu, odnosno obave{tavaju vojno tuì-la{tvo o licima kojima je uru~en poziv, a nisu se javila nad-le`nim vojnim vlastima, kao i o licima kojima se nije mogaouru~iti poziv. Na osnovu tih podataka, vojno tuìla{tvo aktiviravojni sud. Imaju}i u vidu brojne razgovore sa braniocima iprema na{im saznanjima, podneto je 22.000 krivi~nih prijavaprotiv lica koja se nisu odazvala vojnom pozivu (~lan 214. KZJ).Vojna tuìla{tva su uzela na rad polovinu tih krivi~nih prijava,smatraju}i da ne treba pokrenuti krivi~ni postupak protiv licakoja su kasnila samo nekoliko dana. Istovremeno, utvr|eno jeda ima neaùrnosti u radu vojnih odseka, jer je veliki broj vojnihobveznika ve} bio u svojim ratnim jedinicama i du`nostima, ada vojni odseci o tomo nisu imali aùrnu evidenciju. Smatramoda jo{ ima predmeta koji nisu obra|eni u vojnom tuìla{tvu;

2) prethodni postupak – vojno tuìla{tvo podnosi zahtev vojnomistra`nom sudiji da sprovodi istragu, ili pojedine istra`ne radnje;ili

3) podiè neposrednu optu`nicu ({to je bio naj~e{}i slu~aj), akoima dovoljno dokaza za to; i

4) glavni pretres kada sud donosi presudu o krivi~noj stvari.

Prema na{im saznanjima, broj optuènih lica za krivi~nodelo neodazivanja pozivu i izbegavanje vojne slu`be iz ~lana214. u vezi sa ~lanom 226. KZ SRJ iznosi oko 7.000, a za kri-vi~no delo samovoljnog udaljenja i bekstva iz VJ iz ~lana 217. uvezi sa ~lanom 226. KZ SRJ oko 700.


Do okon~anja ratnog stanja, od ovih 7.700 krivi~nih pred-meta pravosna`no je okon~ano oko 970. Na podru~ju dva vojnasuda u Vojvodini (pri Novosadskom Korpusu i pri Komandivojnog okruga Novi Sad) od 450 pokrenutih postupaka, pre-su|eno je 235 predmeta. Najve}i broj predmeta se odnosi nakrivi~no delo iz ~lana 214. KZ SRJ – oko 200 predmeta. Nakrivi~no delo iz ~lana 217. KZ SRJ odnosi se 35 predmeta.Podneto je Vrhovnom vojnom sudu 347 zahteva za vanrednoubla`avanje kazni, od ~ega u 1999. godini 185, a u toku 2000.godine 162 zahteva. Svi podneti zahtevi su re{eni. Najve}i brojpodnetih zahteva je usvojen, a kazne ubla`avane do zakonskogminimuma od jedne godine za krivi~na dela iz ~lana 214. stav 2. i3. i ~lana 217. stav 3. , 4 i 5. u vezi sa ~lanom 226. stav 2. KZ SRJ,odnosno izricane su uslovne osude za lica osu|ena za krivi~nadela iz ~lana 214. stav 1. i 217. stav 1. i 2. u vezi sa ~lanom 226.stav 1. KZ SRJ, ako su za to postojali zakonski uslovi. Zahtevisu, po pravilu, usvajani ukoliko se osu|eni javio, odnosno vratiou jedinicu, u roku do dvadeset dana i nakon toga ~itavo vremeproveo u jedinici. Odbijeno je samo 20 zahteva.

Podneto je oko 20 molbi za pomilovanje. Nijedna nijere{ena.

Prema na{im saznanjima ne radi se na dono{enju Zakona oamnestiji.

Treba posebno napomenuti da u ove brojeve nisu ura-~unati slu~ajevi sa podru~ja Kosova. Kao {to je poznato, Albanciili nisu pozivani u vojnu slu`bu, ili ako su pozivani, uglavnom senisu odazivali. Nije poznato da je vo|en neki postupak.

O~i boje fronta 35

VI. OBRADAJEDNOG BROJA PREDMETA

U skladu s prikupljenim podacima, obradili smo 43 kri-vi~na predmeta sa podru~ja sva tri vojna suda i to 23 predmeta poosnovu ~lana 214. KZJ i 20 predmeta po osnovu ~lana 217. KZJ.

Navedena 23 predmeta po osnovu ~lana 214. KZJ okon-~ana su na slede}i na~in: 9 optuènih je osu|eno na kaznuzatvora, u 2 slu~aja je izre~ena uslovna osuda, u 1 slu~aju jeizre~ena nov~ana kazna, protiv 2 lica postupak je obustavljen, uslu~aju 6 lica optu`ba je odbijena i 1 lice je oslobo|eno.

Navedenih 20 predmeta po osnovu ~lana 217. KZJ okon-~ani su na slede}i na~in: 16 optuènih je osu|eno na kaznuzatvora, prema 3 je izre~ena uslovna osuda i u 1 slu~aju optu`baje odbijena.

Ve}i broj predmeta bio je pravosna`no okon~an; od togaraspolagali smo i odlukama Vrhovnog vojnog suda po zahtevimao vanrednom ublaàvanju kazni. Obavljen je razgovor sa jednimbrojem branilaca, koji su izneli svoja zapaànja o pravnim pi-tanjima i sprovedenom krivi~nom postupku. Iznosimo karakte-risti~ne slu~ajeve, raspore|ene prema pojedinim krivi~nim de-lima.

NEODAZIVANJE POZIVUI IZBEGAVANJE VOJNE SLU@BE(^LAN 214. KZ SRJ) – 23 SLUÂJA

1. Optuèni D. J., star 34 godine, hemijski tehni~ar, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne)godine, jer bez opravdanog razloga nije oti{ao u Ratnujedinicu, iako je bio upoznat da je pozivan 24. , 25. i 26.marta 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da je tih dana bio u Crnoj Gori sa suprugom idvoje dece na svadbi kod brata od tetke. Kad je saznao da jeratno stanje, poku{avao je da telefonom kontaktira roditelje, alisu linije bile lo{e. Tek ga je 2. aprila 1999. godine, otac te-legramom obavestio da je dobio poziv za mobilizaciju. Istogdana je krenuo za Beograd, a sutradan se javio u vojni odsek,gde je pritvoren i predat sudu. Sud je u dokaznom postupkuizvr{io uvid u telegram, ali je ostao u uverenju da je verovatnooptuèni ranije saznao za poziv. Sud, me|utim, nije prihvatio dapostoji kvalifikovani oblik iz stava 2. ovog krivi~nog dela, jernije dokazano da se optuèni krio.

@alba optuènog je odbijena. Zahtev za vanredno ublaàvanjeje usvojen i izre~ena mu je uslovna osuda, jer je osu|eni “od-mah oti{ao u jedinicu gde je ostao dva puna meseca, da je u tovreme bio dobar vojnik, iako je zbog zdravstvenog stanja imaoozbiljnih problema, zbog kojih je od strane NVLK (Niè voj-no-lekarske komisije) ogla{en privremeno nesposobnim…”

�

2. Optuèni Z. R., star 37 godina, ma{inski tehni~ar, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 6 ({est)meseci, jer bez opravdanog razloga nije oti{ao u RJ, iako je28. marta 1999. godine, poziv primio njegov otac.

O~i boje fronta 37

Optuèni se branio da se od februara 1999. godine nalazio u seluudaljenom preko 300 km od Beograda, te da je o pozivu saznaodana 24. aprila 1999. godine, kada se vratio u Beograd. Vojnomodseku se prijavio 25. aprila 1999. godine. Na glavnom pre-tresu, otac je potvrdio sve navode optuènog. Sud nije poklonioveru iskazu optuènog i njegovog oca, jer je “neuverljiv i sra-~unat s ciljem da se izbegne krivi~na odgovornost optuènog”.

@alba optuènog je odbijena, a vojnog tuìoca usvojena, te jeoptuèni osu|en na 2 (dve) godine zatvora.

�

3. Optuèni D. R., star 29 godina, carinik, vojni obveznik,osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne) godine,jer je, skrivaju}i se, izbegao vojnu slu`bu, tako {to je pro-menio boravi{te a da o tome nije obavestio nadle`ne organe.

Optuèni se branio da nije znao za poziv, da je redovno bio naslu`bi u Carini, a da je jedno vreme spavao kod devojke. Kada je4. aprila 1999. godine saznao za poziv, jer je obave{tenje os-tavljeno na vratima stana, odmah se javio u Vojni odsek. Sudnije uvaìo ovu odbranu, smatraju}i da je optuèni “…dobroznao da je po ratnoj formaciji vojni policajac, {to zna~i da jepouzdano mogao o~ekivati pozivanje u VJ upravo u prvimdanima rata. ”.

Po uloènoj àlbi, Vrhovni sud jo{ nije doneo odluku.

�

4. Vojni obveznik Z. P., star 40 godina, saobra}ajni tehni~ar,optuèn je da, iako je bio pozvan pojedina~nim pozivom da-na 24. 3. 1999. godine, on se u RJ javio tek 5. 4. 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da poziv nije primio, jer je u to vreme biomobilisan i raspore|en u Slu`bu za osmatranje. Dana 5. aprila


supruga ga je obavestila da je traèn i da treba da se javi vojnomodseku, {to je on i u~inio. Sud je sve ove ~injenice potvrdio u do-kaznom postupku. Vojni tuìlac je ostao pri optu`bi. Sud je,me|utim, optuènog oslobodio od optu`be.

�

5. Optuèni S. T., star 30 godina, elektrotehni~ar, vojni ob-veznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne)godine, jer se bez opravdanog razloga nije javio u jednicu25. 3. 1999. godine, ve} 2. 4. 1999. godine, iako je za pozivznao njegov otac.

Optuèni se branio da je za poziv saznao tek 2. 4. 1999. godinekada se i javio u vojni odsek. Otac je obavestio pozivare da sinnije tu. Sud je saslu{ao oca, ali njegovoj izjavi nije poklonioveru.

Vrhovni sud jo{ nije odlu~io o àlbi.

�

6. Optuèni S. \., star 33 godine, srednja {kola, vojni obvez-nik, izre~ena mu je uslovna osuda, jer se bez opravdanograzloga nije javio u RJ 23. 3. 1999. godine, kada je majkaupoznata sa pozivom, ve} se javio 5. 4. 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da je on na privremenom radu u inostranstvu,da ga je majka 28. marta 1999. godine, telefonom obavestila ovojnom pozivu, te da nije mogao u Beograd sti}i pre 4. aprila1999. godine, da je dao svoj doprinos obaranju aviona F-18zbog ~ega je nagra|en.

Vrhovni vojni sud je odbio àlbu vojnog tuìoca, a prvostepenupresudu potvrdio.

�

O~i boje fronta 39

7. Optuèni G. @., star 33 godine, elektrotehni~ar, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na 1 (jednu) godinu zatvora, jer sekriju}i izbegao vr{enje vojne slu`be, tako {to je trebao da se25. 3. 1999. godine javi u RJ, ali mu se poziv nije mogaouru~iti, a on se javio tek 24. 4. 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da na toj adresi ne ìvi od 1995. godine, alida promenu adrese nije prijavio nadle`nim organima. Me|utim,kada je saznao za poziv, odmah se prijavio vojnom odseku. Udokaznom postupku, Sud nije poklonio veru iskazima roditelja.Sud smatra da je zbog propusta samog optuènog do{lo do neu-ru~ivanja poziva.

@alba optuènog je odbijena.

�

8. Optuèni S. A., 53 godine, vojni obveznik, radnik, osu|enje na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 3 (tri) meseca, jer se bezopravdanog razloga nije javio u RJ.

Op{tuèni se branio da 24. marta nije mogao primiti poziv, jer jebio na lekarskom pregledu. Poziv je primio 25. marta 1999. go-dine. Istovremeno, na poslu su mu rekli da }e dobiti re{enje oradnoj obavezi, te ako ne ostane na poslu, presta}e mu radni od-nos. Tako|e je bolestan, leva strana mu je delimi~no oduzeta.Sud nije uvaìo ove o~igledne razloge, iako je izvr{io uvid i ure{enje o radnoj obavezi u preduze}u.

Vrhovni vojni sud je uvaìo àlbu optuènog i ukinuo prvostepe-nu presudu, jer sud nije potpuno utvrdio ~injeni~no stanje.Naime, u me|uvremenu, Vojno-lekarska komisija je optuènogoglasila vojno nesposobnim.

�


9. Optuèni V. R. , star 54 godine, vojni obveznik, osu|en jena 6 ({est) meseci zatvora, jer je odbio primiti poziv, te bezopravdanog razloga se dana 3. 4. 1999. godine nije javio uVJ.

Optuèni se brani da je bio lo{eg zdravstvenog stanja, a da je1991/92 ~etiri meseca bio na dubrova~kom rati{tu.

�

10. Optuèni V. R. , star 37. godina, vojni obveznik, radnik,osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 6 meseci, jer se bezopravdanog razloga i u uslovima ratnog stanja i napada nazemlju, nije javio u vojnu jedinicu.

Branio se da prilikom poku{aja uru~enja poziva nije znao da seradi o vojnom pozivu, jer je bio uzbu|en o~ekuju}i ra|anjedrugog deteta.

�

11. Optuènom L. R. , star 50 godina, srednja {kola, vojniobeznik, izre~ena je uslovna osuda, jer je odbijaju}i prijempoziva, bez opravdanog razloga nije oti{ao u RJ.

Optuèni se branio da je on imao re{enje o radnoj obavezi, pa jeod po{tara odbio prijem preporu~ene po{iljke.

�

12. Optuèni Z. M. , star 36 godina, ma{. ing., vojni ob-veznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne)godine, jer se bez opravdanog razloga nije dana 24. 3. 1999.godine javio u RJ po op{tem pozivu preko TV-5 Ni{, ve} sejavio 29. 4. 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da je stvarno na TV-kanalu 5 Ni{, bilo op{tegpoziva i da su nazna~eni bili brojevi VP. On, me|utim, nije gle-

O~i boje fronta 41

dao svoju knjiìcu. Nakon nekoliko dana drug iz iste jedinice jerekao da }emo dobiti pojedina~ne pozive. Navodi da je pojedi-na~ni poziv dobio 28. 4. 1999. godine, a ve} se sutradan javio uRJ. Sud je kao dokaz izveo izve{taj TV-5 u kojem se vidi da jena kajronu kojim se vojni obeveznici obave{tavaju nalazi i brojVP optuènog.

Vojni sud nije odlu~io o uloènoj àlbi.

�

13. Optuèni I. P. , star 43 godine, ma{inski tehni~ar, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na nov~anu kaznu u iznosu od 3.000 din,jer se dana 15. 3. 1999. godine nije javio u jedinicu, iako jeli~no primio poziv.

Optuèni se brani da je odbio da primi poziv, jer je bio revoltiran{to se on poziva, da je oti{ao do nekog vojnog stare{ine i rekao jeda je bolestan, jer nema polovinu desne lopatice i da mu je lo{aporodi~na situacija, da je u~esnik rata 1991. godine. Navodi daje ve} 17. marta 1999. godine bio u vojnoj bolnici. Sud nijeprihvatio pravnu kvalifikaciju da je delo vr{eno za vreme ratnogstanja.

Predmet se nalazi u Vrhovnom vojnom sudu.

�

14. Optuèni M. M. , star 42 godine, voza~, vojni obveznik,osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 4 meseca, jer senije odazvao na pojedina~ni poziv od 26. maja 1999. godine,pa je nakon privo|enja u vojnu policiju 28. 5. 1999. godine,ve} sutradan bez pitanja napustio slu`bene prostorije vojnepolicije, te se vojnoj policiji sam prijavio tek 2. 6. 1999.godine.

Optuèni se brani da mu je majka dala pojedina~ni poziv i da seon sam javio. Priznaje da je napustio prostorije vojne policije,


ali je to u~inio jer je tamo pio mnogo, pa se nije mogao kon-trolisati. Otputovao je u Beograd do svoga brata i odmah sevratio i javio u vojnu policiju, iskreno se kaju}i. Sud nije pri-hvatio pravnu kvalifikaciju iz optu`nice o kvalifikovanom ob-liku krivi~nog dela.


�

15. Optuèni I. J. , star 25 godina, trgovac, vojni obveznik,osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 6({est) godina, jer je, da bi izbegao vojnu slu`bu, dana 22. 3.1999. godine, napustio zemlju.

Sud je doneo presudu na osnovu izjava roditelja optuènog daim se sin nalazi u inostranstvu i fotokopije paso{a koju jepriloìo branilac (!?) kojom se dokazuje da se optuèni nalazi uinostranstvu.

�

16. Vojni obveznik Z. M, star 34 godine, bravar, optuèn jeda se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je li~no primio pozivdana 2. 4. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni uredno javio ujedinicu.

�

17. Vojni obveznik Z. O, star 31 godinu, dipl. ma{. ing,optuèn je da se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je li~no primiopoziv dana 4. 4. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni uredno javio ujedinicu.

�

O~i boje fronta 43

18. Vojni obveznik P. M, star 30 godina, srednja {kola,optuèn je da se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je li~no primiopoziv dana 24. 3. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni uredno javio u je-dinicu.

�

19. Vojni obveznik V. R, star 37 godina, ma{inski tehni~ar,optuèn je da se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je li~no primiopoziv dana 30. 3. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni uredno javio u je-dinicu.

�

20. Vojni obveznik P. G, star 38 godina, nezaposlen, optuènje da se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je vojni poziv primilanjegova majka dana 28. 3. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbije-na, jer je na glavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni ured-no javio u jedinicu.

�

21. Vojni obeznik I. R, star 24 godine, fizi~ki radnik, optuènje da se nije javio vojnoj jedinici iako je li~no primio pozivdana 31. 3. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da se optuèni uredno javio ujedinicu.

�

22. Protiv vojnog obveznika S. M, star 31 godinu, pokrenutje krivi~ni postupak jer se nije javio u vojnu jedinicu 25.marta 1999. godine, iako je za to znao preko brata, koji je


poziv primio i bez obzira na upozorenje pozivara da se morajaviti na vojni poziv. Postupak je obustavljen odustankomvojnog tuìoca, koji je utvrdio da optuèni od 1993. godinene ìvi u Jugoslaviji, te da nije mogao biti upoznat sa sa-drìnom poziva.

�

23. Protiv vojnog obveznika B. [, star 37 godina, pokrenut jekrivi~ni postupak, jer se 29. 3. 1999. godine nije javio uratnu jedinicu, a da mu se poziv nije mogao uru~iti, jer jepromenio boravi{te bez prijave nadle`nom organu. Postu-pak je obustavlje odustankom vojnog tuìoca, koji je u tokupriprema za glavni pretres utvrdio da je optuèni uredno iz-vr{io promenu boravi{ta, te da nije mogao da bude upoznatsa mobilizacijskim pozivom.

SAMOVOLJNO UDALJAVANJEI BEKSTVO IZ VOSKE JUGOSLAVIJE(^LAN 217. KZ SRJ) – 20 SLUÂJEVA

1. Optuèni Z. M, star 30 godina, poljoprivrednik, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne)godine, jer je samovoljno napustio jedinicu i istog dana jezaustavljen i li{en slobode. Protiv njega je odbijena optu`baza krivi~no delo te{ke kra|e robe u vrednosti preko 70.000din. sa podru~ja Kosmeta.

Optuèni se branio da je 23. 5. 1999. godine nare|eno po-vla~enje, pa je on svojim kamionom po{ao prema nazna~enommestu. Postojale su glasine da je vojska po~ela da beì, jer suvojnici bili prepla{eni zbog velikih gubitaka. Dok, za stvari je

O~i boje fronta 45

rekao da su u kamion njegovog vlasni{tva stavili drugi vojnici,koji su te stvari uzimali iz napu{tenih ku}a na Kosovu. Kasnije,za vreme kontrole na putu, oni su to negirali. Sud je poverovaostare{inama optuènog da oni nisu dali nikakvo nare|enje zapovla~enje, ve} da “oni nisu mogli da zadrè vojnike koji su seukrcali u vozila i krenuli ku}ama”. U pogledu krivi~nog delate{ke kra|e, vojni tuiìlac je odustao od optu`be.

@alba optuènog je odbijena, ali je usvojen zahtev za vanrednoublaàvanje, te je optuènom izre~ena uslovna osuda, “jer jepsihi~ki oboleo u ratnim uslovima – anksiozno depresivan… tete{ko oboljenje dede – infarkt…”.

�

2. Optuèni G. \, star 35 godina, radnik, vojni obveznik,osu|en je na jedinstvenu kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1(jedne) godine i 6 ({est) meseci – za delo iz ~lan 217. KZ SRJna 1 godinu i za delo te{ke kra|e iz ~lana 166. KZS na jednugodinu, jer je samovoljno napustio jedinicu, te da je na Ko-sovu prisvojio veliku koli~inu robe.

Optuèni se brani tako {to iznosi da im je 23. 5. 1999. godinestare{ina rekao da su sve ostale ~ete samovoljno napustile bor-bena mesta, a da je ostala samo njihova ~eta. Tada je neko rekaoda idu i oni, {to su i u~inili. Za stvari kaè da je “na{ao stvarikoje su verovatno ostavili [iptari prilikom bekstva i iste pri-svojio…”. Na glavnom pretresu su stare{ine optuènog po-tvrdile da su “jedinice tih vojnika napustile borbene linije i oninisu mogli da ih zadrè”, kao i to da “nikom od vojnika nijeizdavao nare|enje da ostanu na poloàju i vrate se na mestorazme{taja, jer je i on sam po{ao sa njima”.

@alba optuènog je odbijena, ali je usvojen zahtev za vanrednoublaàvanje, te je optuènom izre~ena jedinstvena kazna zatvo-ra u trajanju od 8 (osam) meseci, jer se osu|eni vratio u svoju


ratnu jedinicu, da su kod njega nastali odre|eni zdravstveniproblemi psihi~ke prirode…

�

3. Optuèni D. Z, star 43 godine, poljoprivrednik, vojniobveznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne)godine i 6 ({est) meseci, jer je u dva navrata napustio je-dinicu, jednom 7 sati (9. 4. 1999), a drugi put 4 dana (11-15.4. 1999).

Optuèni se branio da je prvi put i{ao po kafanama da kon-zumira alkohol, a drugi put je i{ao da poseti familiju, kao iprijateljicu, pa ponovo kafane.

Vrhovni vojni sud je uvaìo àlbu optuènog i smanjio je kaznuzatvora na 1 ( jednu) godinu.

�

4. Optuèni I. T, star 38 godina, bravar, vojni obveznik,izre~ena mu je uslovna osuda {to je u dva navrata samo-voljno napustio jedinicu, i to 12. 4. 1999. u trajanju od 2 satai 27. 4. 1999. godine u trajanju od 3 sata.

Optuèni se branio da je prvi put oti{ao u prodavnicu, udaljenu50 metara od jedinice na pivo, a drugi put ku}i da pomogne ènida prenese neke stvari iz podruma, a zatim svratio u restoran napi}e. Sud je utvrdio da je optuèni dobar i savestan vojnik.

Vrhovni vojni sud je potvrdio ovu presudu.

�

5. Optuèni D. S., star 43 godine, nezaposlen, vojni obeznik,osu|en je na 3 (tri) meseca zatvora, jer je dana 19. maja1999. godine samovoljno napustio jedinicu, oti{ao ku}i i u je-dinicu se vratio nakon 8 sati odsustvovanja.

O~i boje fronta 47

Optuèni se brani da je poljoprivrednik, da ima ènu i troje dece,a da nemaju sredstava za ìvot. Morao je da ide ku}i da bi obavioneke neophodne poljoprivredne radove.


�

6. Optuèni \. P., star 49 godina, Albanac, ugostiteljskiradnik, vojni obveznik, osu|en je na kaznu zatvora u tra-janju od 10 (deset) meseci, jer se nakon dozvoljenog boravkavan jedinice do 14. 4. 1999. godine, nije vratio u jedinicu.

Optuèni se brani da je, pored podozrenja i neprijatnosti odsvojih sunarodnika, ~esto pozivan i odazivao se vojnim po-zivima, pa je bio i na rati{tu. Zbog saobra}ajne nesre}e, ~estoima jake glavobolje i gubitak ravnoteè, da je trebalo po odo-brenju da se javi NVLK, ali je on ostao kod ku}e.

�

7. Optuèni N. R., star 21 godinu, radnik bez zaposlenja,vojni obeznik, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora utrajanju od 6 ({est) godina, jer je pobegao iz vojne jedinice.Nalazi se na izdràvanju kazne od 25. februara 2000. godine.Prvostepeni sud je dozvolio ponavljanje postupka, dostavioje optu`nicu, prekinuo izvr{enje kazne i odredio pritvor dozavr{etka glavnog pretresa. Krivi~ni postupak je u toku.

�

8. Optuèni B. K, star 23 godine, radnik bez zaposlenja,ranije osu|ivan, na odsluènju vojnog roka, osu|en je nakaznu zatvora u trajanju od 1 (jedne) godine, jer je dana 6.6. 1999. godine samovoljno napustio jedinicu.

Optuèni se brani da je od svog stare{ine traìo dopust od dvadana da bi posetio svoju bolesnu majku. Kako nije dobio dopust,


samovoljno je napustio jedinicu. Javio se tek na poziv istra`nogsudije. Sud je utvrdio da je optuèni bio primeran vojnik ikandidat za komandira odeljenja, da je nedovoljno zrela li~nost,ali sud nije utvrdio da li je optuèni stvarno traìo odobrenje daposeti svoju bolesnu majku.

Presuda nije pravosna`na.

�

9. Optuèni Z. R., star 26 godina, komercijalni referent, naodsluènju vojnog roka, izre~ena mu je uslovna osuda, jer sesa odobrenog odsustva-bolovanja vratio dana 21. 4. 1999.godine, umesto dana 11. 4. 1999. godine.

Optuèni se branio da mu je u rodnom mestu civilni hirurgproduìo bolovanje do 23. aprila 1999. godine, {to je i javiovojnom odseku. Me|utim, ovi nisu javili u jedinicu, pa je moraoda se u jedinicu vrati pre isteka produènog bolovanja. Sud jepotvrdio odbranu optuènog, utvrdio da se optuèni vratio ujedinicu, iako je i dalje hramao, kao i da je bez pogovoraizvr{avao postavljene zadatke, ali nije priznao bolovanje odcivilnog lekara.

�

10. Optuèni F. B., star 23 godine, Musliman, radi u ino-stranstvu, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora u traja-nju od 7 (sedam) godina, jer se od odobrenog odsustvovanja,koje je isteklo 30. 4. 1999. godine, nije vratio u jedinicu.

�

11. Optuèni D. S., star 38 godina, radnik, vojni obveznik,osu|en je u odsutnosti na 7 godina zatvora, jer je 6. 4. 1999.godine, samovoljno napustio jedinicu i vi{e se nije vratio.

O~i boje fronta 49

�

12. Optuèni R. B., star 27 godina, Musliman, na odsluènjuvojnog roka, radnik, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu za-tvora u trajanju od 6 ({est) godina, jer se sa odobrenogvikend-odsustva, koje je isteklo 29. 4. 1999. godine, vi{e nijevratio u jedinicu.

�

13. Optuèni N. K., star 20 godina, Musliman, na odsluènjuvojnog roka, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora utrajanju od 7 (sedam) godina, jer do dozvoljenog boravkavan jedinice, od 1. maja 1999. godine vi{e se nije vratio ujedinicu.

�

14. Optuèni S. K., star 28 godina, na odsluènju vojnogroka, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora u trajanju od8 (osam) godina, jer se vi{e nije vratio u svoju jedinicu saodobrenog odsustva koje je isteklo 5. maja 1999. godine.

�

15. Optuèni M. @., star 20 godina, radnik, na odsluènjuvojnog roka, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora utrajanju od 5 (pet) godina, jer je dana 2. 4. 1999. godinesamovoljno napustio svoju jedinicu i vi{e se nije vratio.

�

16. Optuèni M. \., star 21 godinu, radnik, na odsluènjuvojnog roka, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznu zatvora utrajanju od 5 (pet) godina, jer je dana 30. 3. 1999. godinesamovoljno napustio svoju jedinicu i vi{e se nije vratio.


�

17. Optuèni K. D., star 22 godine, automehani~ar, Mu-sliman, na odsluènju vojnog roka, osu|en je u odsutnostina kaznu zatvora u trajanju od 3 (tri) godine, jer se saodobrenog odsustva, koje je isteklo 1. maja 1999. godine,vi{e nije vratio u jedinicu.

�

18. Optuèni A. A, star 21 godinu, radnik, Musliman, naodsluènju vojnog roka, osu|en je u odsutnosti na kaznuzatvora u trajanju od 3 (tri) godine, jer se sa odobrenogodsustva, koje je isteklo 10. maja 1999. godine, vi{e nijevratio u jedinicu.

�

19. Optuèni D. [., star 37 godina, osu|en je u odsutnosti na7 (sedam) godina zatvora, jer se sa odobrenog odsustva, kojeje isteklo 4. 5. 1999. godine, vi{e nije vratio u jedinicu.

�

20. Vodnik u rezervi D. T., star 43 godine, radnik, optuèn jeda je samovoljno napustio du`nost 19. 5. 1999. godine, a dase vratio 20. 5. 1999. godine. Optu`ba je odbijena, jer je naglavnom pretresu utvr|eno da je optuèni urednom dozvo-lom napustio jedinicu.

O~i boje fronta 51

ZAKLJU^AK:

Veliki broj krivi~nih predmeta nije re{en. Ti predmeti stojekao “Damoklov ma~” iznad glava velikog broja mladih ljudi.Jedan deo tih mladi}a strahuje da se ti krivi~ni postupci ne(zlo)upotrebe u politi~ke svrhe. Treba poja~ati kampanju zapravno okon~anje tih krivi~nih predmeta: (1) obustavomkrivi~nog postupka, ukoliko nisu podignute optu`nice; (2)obustavom, odnosno odlaganjem izvr{enja pravosna`nihosu|uju}ih sudskih presuda; (3) ~estim pritiscima javnogmnjenja za dono{enjem Zakona o amnestiji, u cilju mo-mentalnog osloba|anja svih zatvorenih.

Avgust, 2000.


EYESTHE COLOR OFTHE FRONTLINE

��

a project of the Centre for Antiwar Action aboutthe persons who boycotted the draft or deserted

from the Yugoslav army during the NATOinvervention in FR Yugoslavia

CENTRE FOR ANTIWAR ACTIONBelgrade, August 2000

EYES THE COLOR OF THE FRONTLINE*

* “Sidewalks of Toronto… Eyes the colour of the frontline… Password of us all”– A verse from the song “To live in freedom” from the LP “The 1990s” by DjordjeBala{evi}

I. SITUATION UNTILMARCH 24, 1999

Following the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords(1995) partial mobilisations did not stop in the territory of FRY.The emphasis in the war effort shifted to Kosovo. At first, mobi-lisation of the reserve police corps was carried out because it wasbelieved that the situation in Kosovo should be pacified by policeoperations. However, after the events in early 1998, when mas-sive killings of civilians took place, also the Yugoslav Army (VJ)became involved to a larger extent but, at first, as logistical sup-port only.

A number of young people evaded being drafted. For themost part, they abandoned their domiciles and even the country.This issue was not declared a problem in public, probably for po-litical reasons. People lived more or less believing that therewould not be any larger-scale armed clashes and that the armedconflict in Kosovo was going on against “a handful of impas-sioned terrorists”.

On March 24, 1999, however, the Federal Governmentadopted the Decision to Proclaim the Immediate Threat of Warand on March 25, 1999 it adopted the Decision to Proclaim theState of War. These decisions read as follows:

“By virtue of Article 99, item 10 of the Constitution of the Fed-eral Republic of Yugoslavia, having heard the opinion of the

President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Presi-dents of the Chambers of the Federal Assembly, the FederalGovernment has adopted

THE DECISION TO PROCLAIM THEIMMEDIATE THREAT OF WAR

1) The immediate threat of war is hereby proclaimed because thereis threat of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugosla-via.

2) This decision shall take effect immediately.

This decision was published in the “Official Gazette of FRY”No. 14/99.”

“By virtue of Article 99, item 10 of the Constitution of the Fed-eral Republic of Yugoslavia, having heard the opinion of thePresident of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Presi-dents of the Chambers of the Federal Assembly, the FederalGovernment has adopted

THE DECISION TO PROCLAIMTHE STATE OF WAR

1) The state of war is hereby proclaimed because an aggression hasstarted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

2) This decision shall take effect immediately.

This decision was published in the “Official Gazette of FRY”No. 15/99”.


The Federal Government passed these decisions day afterday on the basis of the authorisation under Article 99, item 9 ofthe FRY Constitution. Under that provision, the Federal Govern-ment may make such decisions “when the Federal Assembly isnot in a position to meet”. The opinion prevails that conditionsdid exist for the Federal Assembly to meet. It eventually did meetin conditions of the state of war to discuss the issue of Yugosla-via’s accession to the Alliance of Russia and Belarus.

It is clear that mobilisation calls became increasingly fre-quent immediately. These calls were, for the most part, individ-ual but in certain parts – Ni{, for instance – they were also public– via TV and radio stations. Failure to respond to this draft was acriminal offence and desertion also a criminal offence against theYugoslav Army (Articles 214 and 217 of the Criminal Code ofFRY) and particularly in conditions of the state of war which ledautomatically to the enforcement of Article 226 of the FRYCriminal Code (CC). This meant that much harsher sentenceswould be pronounced relative to the prescribed punishment.Thus, for instance, the punishment for boycotting the draft waschanged from up to 1 year to 1 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Goinginto hiding in order to evade doing the military service, punish-able by three months’ to five years’ imprisonment, now becamepunishable by a harsher sentence of at least 5 years’ or 20 years’imprisonment equal to that for persons who have left the countryor remained abroad for the same reason. Further to this, in thecases of enforcement of Article 226 paragraphs 2 and 3, in con-nection with Article 214, paragraph 2 and 3, and Article 217,paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the FRY Criminal Code, a suspendedsentence may not be pronounced. For, under Article 53, para-graph 3 of the FRY Criminal Code, a suspended sentence maynot be passed for any criminal offence for which even after atten-

O~i boje fronta 57

uation of punishment a sentence of less than a year’s imprison-ment cannot be given. This refers to the case from Article 43,paragraph 1, item 1 of the Criminal Code of FRY which stipu-lates that if the least punishment for a criminal offence is three ormore years’ imprisonment, the sentence may be reduced to up toone year in prison.


II. CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF FRY

The provisions of Article 214 and 217 of the FRY CC readas follows:

"Failure to respond to the draft and evasionof military service

Article 214

1) Whoever, without a justified reason, fails to come at a giventime to the recruitment in order to be told his war duty station, orin order to be commissioned weapons, or in order to do his mili-tary service, a military exercise or any other military service, al-though he has been called-up by an individual or general draft,shall be fined or punished by up to 1 year in prison.

2) Whoever goes into hiding in order to evade military servicementioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, although he has beencalled-up by an individual or general draft, shall be punished bythree months’ to five years’ imprisonment.

3) Whoever leaves the country or remains abroad in order to evaderecruitment, or doing his military service, a military exercise orany other military service, shall be punished by one to ten years’imprisonment.

4) Whoever calls or incites several other persons to commit the of-fence from paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Article, shall be punished forthe offence mentioned in paragraph 1 by up to three years inprison, and for the offence mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 byat least one year in prison.

The perpetrator of the offence mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3of this Article who reports to the competent authority of his ownfree will may be given a more lenient sentence or may be acquit-ted."

"Wilful departure and desertion from theYugoslav Army

Article 217

1) A military officer who wilfully leaves his unit or service andfails to return to his duty within 10 days or does not return to hisunit or service after having been permitted to leave to do an as-signment outside the unit, shall be punished by up to one year inprison.

2) Any military officer who stays without permission more thantwice and for less than 10 days away from his unit or service, aswell as any military officer who wilfully leaves his unit or ser-vice during the execution of an important assignment or at thetime of heightened combat readiness has been called in that unitshall also be punished by the term of imprisonment specified inparagraph 1 of this Article.

3) A military officer who goes into hiding in order to evade servicein the Yugoslav Army (VJ) or who wilfully leaves his unit orservice and fails to return to duty within thirty days or fails to re-turn within the same time limit from an assignment he has been


given to do away from his unit or service, shall be punished bysix months’ to five years’ imprisonment.

4) A military officer who leaves the country or remains abroad inorder to evade service in the Yugoslav Army shall be punishedby at least one year in prison.

5) A military officer who is preparing to flee abroad in order toevade service in the Yugoslav Army shall be punished by sixmonths’ to five years’ imprisonment.

6) The perpetrator mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Articlewho reports to the competent authority of his own free will maybe punished more leniently.”

As the subject of our consideration here is the commission ofthese offences during the state of war, any decision on the lengthof the term of imprisonment is governed by Article 226 of theFRY CC which reads as follows:

"Punishment for criminal offences committedduring the state of war or in case of immediatethreat of war

Article 226

1) The perpetrator who commits the criminal offence mentionedin… Article 214 paragraph 1, Article 217, paragraphs 1 and 2…of this Law, during the state of war or in case of immediatethreat of war, shall be punished by one to ten years’ imprison-ment.

2) The perpetrator who commits the criminal offence mentioned in... Article 217 paragraph 5 … of this Law during the state of waror in case of immediate threat of war, shall be punished by atleast 3 years’ imprisonment.

O~i boje fronta 61

3) The perpetrator who commits the criminal offence mentioned in… Article 214 paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 217 paragraphs 3 and4… of this Law during the state of war or in case of immediatethreat of war shall be punished by at least 5 years in prison or bytwenty years’ imprisonment.”

The state of immediate threat of war was proclaimed onMarch 24, 1999 and the state of war lasted from March 25 to June24, 1999.

The acts of criminal offence mentioned in Article 214 ofthe FRY CC are: (1) failure to respond to the call-up, (2) evasionand (3) calling on and encouraging more than two persons tocommit this criminal offence. Criminal offences mentioned inArticle 217 of the FRY CC are: (1) wilful departure and no-showover a period of more than 10 days, (2) staying away from theunit for a period of up to 10 days twice without permission; (3)wilful departure during the execution of an important assignmentor heightened combat readiness of the unit; and (3) desertion.However, if the perpetrator reports to the competent authority ofhis own free will, he may be punished more leniently or acquittedfor the mentioned “qualified” forms of the criminal offence athand. The “qualified” forms of these offences are, for the offencementioned in Article 214 of the FRY CC: (1) going into hiding;and (2) escape abroad or remaining abroad. For the offence men-tioned in Article 217 of the FRY CC the qualified forms are: (1)going into hiding, or if he fails to return to his duty within 30days; (2) escape abroad or remaining abroad. The preparationsfor the desertion are also punishable. However, if the perpetratorreports to the competent authority of his own free will, he may bepunished more leniently for the “qualified” forms.

As no clear distinction has been drawn between the actmentioned in paragraph 1 (failure to come without any justified


reason…) and paragraph 2 (he is hiding in order to evade hisduty...) of Article 214 of the FRY CC, in the mentioned period,Military Prosecutors as a rule charged all military conscripts whofailed to come to their unit with a graver form of the criminal of-fence, i.e. they charged them with going into hiding althoughthey did not dispose of any reliable information on that score. Asa result, such military conscripts were called upon to answer forthe criminal offence mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 214 inconnection with Article 226 of the FRY CC. Consequently, suchpersons could not be given any sentence shorter than up to oneyear in prison no matter after how many days any one of them re-turned to his unit i.e. what were the reasons for his failure to re-spond. There were certain departures from this practice in theMilitary District in Podgorica. In that region, the courts, as a rule,punished such persons by several months in prison.

An important and first element for the criminal offencementioned in Article 214 of the FRY CC is failure to respond bycoming without any justified reason. This justified reason islinked to two circumstances: (1) not knowing that a call-up hasbeen sent and (2) being prevented from responding to the call.Most of the disputes arose over whether military conscripts hadany knowledge about the draft or not. The courts maintained thatall conscripts had knowledge about their duties since it was com-mon knowledge that the country was in a state of war. Some legaljustification for this claim can be found in Article 7 of the Law onDefence that reads as follows:

“In case of an attack against the country, all its citizens at homeand abroad, the commands, units and institutions of the Yugo-slav Army, representatives of the agencies and organisations ofgovernment administration and management boards and otherdecision-making bodies in enterprises and other legal persons

O~i boje fronta 63

are duty-bound, immediately upon learning about it, withoutwaiting for a call or an order, to act in accordance with their warduty station and carry out the obligations stipulated by the Na-tional Defence Plan or excerpt from that Plan and the obliga-tions mentioned in the decisions and measures taken by the Fed-eral Government”.

However, we hold that this legal view is unacceptablegiven the fact that no general mobilisation had been proclaimedbut only partial. Acting in the manner stipulated by this provisionwould have resulted in chaos. Hence, the only correct legalcourse of action is to establish whether a military conscript hadany knowledge about his draft.

Since military conscripts were, as a rule, sent individualdraft calls, the proceedings had to establish whether that draftcall had been delivered. In doing this, the criteria to be taken intoaccount were those established in the Law on General Legal Pro-cedure because what was at issue – compulsory delivery is gov-erned by Article 87 of this Law. However, the courts held theview that a call-up had been delivered if the military authorityleft the notice informing about the draft call with a family mem-ber or with neighbours. Moreover, the courts took this fact asproven even when a military conscript reported to his militaryunit with a delay, although he stated that he had come as soon ashe learnt about the call-up! By way of example: The accusedD.R., aged 29, customs officer, draft registrant, was sen-tenced to 1 (one) year in prison because he went into hiding inorder to evade his military duty by changing his place of resi-dence without informing the competent authorities thereof.The defendant argued that he had not known anything about thedraft call, that he was at his place of duty with the Customs, andthat for a while he spent nights with his girlfriend. When on April


4, 1999 he learnt about the draft call, the notice having been leftat the door of his apartment, he immediately reported to the mili-tary department. The Court disregarded his defence holding theview that the accused “… knew full well that he was on militarypolice force as his war duty station meaning that he could cer-tainly have expected to be called by the VJ precisely in the firstfew days of the war.” However, there are also cases when crimi-nal proceedings were suspended. Here an example: Criminalproceedings were initiated against a draft registrant B.{.,aged 37, because on March 29, 1999 he failed to report to hismilitary unit and the draft call could not be delivered be-cause he had changed his place of residence without report-ing it to the competent authority. The proceedings were sus-pended when the Military Prosecutor dropped the chargeshaving established in the course of preparations for the mainhearing that the accused had changed his place of residencein accordance with the law and could not be informed of hisdraft call.

The second basis for a justified reason isthe inability to re-spond to a call-up. The most frequent reason was illness. How-ever, the courts refused to take into consideration the medical pa-pers issued by civilian hospitals. The only plausible paper forthem was the findings and opinion of the Military Medical Com-mission. They likewise refused to take into consideration as ajustified reason the fact that military conscripts had been awayon business, in the country, for instance, with no telephone com-munications.

Leaving the country or remaining abroad were factors thatmandated the holding of the main hearing in absentia. In suchcircumstances, two questions are of relevance: (1) whether theperson abroad had any knowledge about the draft and (2) whe-

O~i boje fronta 65

ther there was any intention to evade responding to the call-up.As a rule, the courts held a priori the view that all persons wereinformed of the draft by the very fact that the state of war hadbeen proclaimed! Whether somebody was abroad or not was de-termined on the basis of any testimony given by his next of kin orother persons. An example: The accused I.J., aged 25, a sales-man, draft registrant, was sentenced in absentia to six (6)years in prison because, to evade his military duties, onMarch 22, 1999 he left the country. The Court passed thisjudgement on the basis of the statement by his parents that theirson was abroad and a photocopy of his passport provided by hiscounsel for the defence (!?) proving that the accused was abroad.However, there were also exceptions, namely when criminal pro-ceedings were suspended. Here an example: Criminal proceed-ings were initiated against draft registrant S.M., aged 31, be-cause he failed to report to his military unit on March 25,1999 although he had known about it through his brotherwho received the draft call and regardless of the warning bythe call-up courier that he had to respond to that call-up. Theproceedings were suspended when the Military Prosecutordropped the charges having established that the accused hadnot lived in Yugoslavia since 1963 and that he could not havebeen informed of the contents of the draft call.

The second circumstance – intention was not necessary toprove in particular; in every case the Court held the view that itwas a state of fact that the intention had existed. We point out inparticular to the cases of withdrawal of the military from a line ofcombat without the order of superior officers. The Courts foundguilty the military conscripts who had, together with their entireunit, abandoned line of combat due to the war operations by theenemy forces, because they had done so without the order of their


superior officers. It is strange, however, that the superior officersabandoned such combat stations with those soldiers and were notmade to answer for it. Here an example: The accused G.Dj.,aged 35, a worker, draft registrant, was given a combinedsentence of one (1) year and six (6) months in prison – for theoffence mentioned in Article 217 of the FRY CC – 1 year andfor the offence of grand larceny mentioned in Article 166 ofthe Criminal Code of Serbia – one year, because he wilfullyleft his unit and appropriated a large quantity of goods inKosovo. In his defence, the accused argued that on May 23, 1999their superior officer told them that other companies had wilfullyleft their combat stations and that only their company had re-mained. Then somebody said that they should leave too and sothey did. At the main hearing, the superior officers of the defen-dant confirmed that “the units of those soldiers had left theircombat stations and they could not stop them” as well as that “hedid not give the order to anyone of the soldiers to remain at theposition and return to the place of their original assignment be-cause he, too, joined them”.

O~i boje fronta 67

III. ACTION BY THE COURTS

The punitive policy was not uniform. In the first few daysof their work, the Military Courts pronounced drastic sentences,partly due to the lack of experience of the judges, partly in orderto thus influence military conscripts to respond in larger num-bers. Later on, the Supreme Military Court developed criteria forpronouncing sentences and the punitive policy became some-what more uniform. However, insufficient attention continued tobe given to individual aspects of punishment. Nevertheless, evensentence forms were published in order to expedite the work ofthe Courts. Typically, for example, when they tried persons whoreported to their units after ten or so days after receiving the draftcall, the judges who ruled in such cases, stated in public that thesentences passed would be forgiven after the war under the pend-ing Amnesty Law or that the convicts would be pardoned. Re-grettably, this did not materialise and, as a result, those people,who after such trials proceeded to join their units in time of war,were placed in a very serious situation because they now have toserve their terms of imprisonment. Namely, their sentences can-not be commuted in the special commutation procedure becausethe offences at issue are such that not even by way of commuta-tion can a more lenient sentence be pronounced than one year inprison (for offences mentioned in Article 214, paragraphs 2 and 3in connection with Article 226 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the FRY

CC). It has thus happened that these young people, due to the in-correct legal qualification of the offence and its uncritical accep-tance by the Military Courts, face a hopeless situation. Evidently,those responsible do not feel like enacting the Amnesty Law orgranting pardon en masse because of decisive importance are po-litical stands and strong polarisation between what is “patriotic”and what is “treacherous”!

First-instance courts gave to persons who reported to theunit at any time, for the most part, sentences of up to one year onaverage for the criminal offences mentioned in Article 214, para-graphs 1 and 2 and Article 217, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the FRYCC. However, in the territory of Montenegro, even sentencesfrom 3 to 6 months on average were passed for such criminal of-fences because the Courts changed the qualification of the of-fence from that mentioned in paragraph 2 to that mentioned inparagraph 1. As for absent persons, heavy prison sentences weregiven averaging from 6 to 7 years.

The actually competent court for the criminal offencesmentioned in Articles 214 and 217 of the CCY is the MilitaryCourt. Actual jurisdiction is determined under the provisions ofthe Law on Military Courts. Under Article 9, item 1, of the Lawon Military Courts, military courts try offences committed bymilitary officers and, in cases stipulated by this Law, also the of-fences committed by other persons. Thus, under Article 10, para-graph 1, item 8, of this Law, Military Courts try civilians for thecriminal offences mentioned in Articles 201-236 of the FRY CC.This means that Military Courts are actually competent to try allpersons who commit criminal offences of failure to respond tothe call-up and evade military service mentioned in Article 214of the FRY CC and wilful departure from and desertion from theYugoslav Army mentioned in Article 217 of the FRY CC.

O~i boje fronta 69

Local jurisdiction is determined under the provisions ofthe Law on Criminal Procedure, the FRY Criminal Code and theLaw on Military Courts. Under Article 26, paragraph 1 of theLaw on Criminal Procedure local jurisdiction is, as a rule, withthe Court in whose area the offence was committed or attempted.On the other hand, under Article 32 of the FRY Criminal Code, acriminal offence is committed both at the place where the perpe-trator worked or was obliged to work and at the place where theconsequence occurred. Further, preparation and attempt are con-sidered committed both at the place where the perpetrator wor-ked and at the place where, according to his plan, the conse-quence was due to occur or could have occurred. In the light ofthese legal provisions, local jurisdiction for the criminal offencementioned in Article 214 of the FRY CC is, as a rule, determinedto be at the place where the draft call was to be delivered and, forthe criminal offence mentioned in Article 217 of the FRY CC, asa rule, at the place where the unit was abandoned, i.e. where amilitary officer was obliged to return after his approved leave ofabsence.

Under Article 8 of the Law on Military Courts there arethree first-instance Military Courts: the Military Court in Bel-grade, which covers the area of the First Army; the MilitaryCourt in Podgorica, which covers the area of the Second Army;and the Military Court in Ni{, which covers the area of the ThirdArmy. However, during the state of war, these Court cease work-ing and first-instance courts are set up at the Commands of mili-tary districts, divisions, corps, Armies, Commands of the AirForce and Air Defences and the Command of the Navy. How-ever, the Supreme Military Court continues working at the Head-quarters of the Supreme Command (Article 74 of the Law onMilitary Courts). During the state of war from March 25 to June


24, 1999, 20 courts-martial were set up, 5 of which in Belgradeas first-instance military courts-martial, 2 courts-martial in NoviSad, etc. Departments of the Supreme Military Court were set upin Ni{ and Podgorica. Under Article 75 of the Law on MilitaryCourts, during the state of war, it is the President of the Republic,at the proposal of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commandthat appoints, grants leaves of absence and relieves of duty thePresident, the judges and jurors of the Military Courts. Upon thecessation of the state of war, all criminal cases were distributedamong the three mentioned Military Courts in Belgrade, Pod-gorica and Ni{.

Persons – military conscripts were appointed judges andMilitary Prosecutors according to their predetermined war dutystation. For the most part, these persons as civilians had not beeninvolved with the work of the courts. Not only in the beginningbut later on as well, this resulted in their lack of resourcefulnessboth with regard to the application of procedural law and the le-gal qualification of the offences and the punitive treatment i.e.decision-making.

In the first days of the state of war the first trials began be-cause at the same time as the military courts the Military Prose-cutors’ Offices were established as part of the same units andCommands of the military districts.

O~i boje fronta 71

IV. OBSERVATIONSON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

By its Decree on the Application of the Law on CriminalProcedure during the State of War (“Official Gazette of FRY”No. 21/99), the Federal Government introduced substantialamendments to the Law on Criminal Procedure. Thus, for a de-fendant-deserter, the court in whose territory he is caught orwhere he reports by himself shall have local jurisdiction (Article2 of the Decree); the obligation to procure the approval for theprosecution of the criminal offences from Chapter XV (againstthe constitutional order…), Chapter XVI (against humanity…),Chapter XX (against the Yugoslav Army, hence also of the crim-inal offences mentioned in Articles 214 and 217 of the FRY CC)and of the criminal offences punishable by at least 5 years inprison (Article 3) shall be abolished; no exemption may be re-quested on the grounds of suspected lack of impartiality (Article4); certain investigating acts may also be carried out by the com-petent police officer who, in emergency cases, may conduct suchacts also without the Public Prosecutor’s request (Article 6); theprosecution may search a person or an apartment without a war-rant on the grounds of suspicion that the above mentioned crimi-nal offences have been committed (those mentioned in ChapterXV, XVI, XX…) – Article 7; 30-day detention may be orderedalso by the competent police officer (Article 8); the Public Prose-

cutor may issue an indictment without having conducted an in-vestigation and without the consent of the investigating judge(Article 9); the period from the delivery of the indictment to themain hearing may not be shorter than 48 hours (Article 10); anobjection to the indictment does not affect the holding of themain hearing (Article 11); in case of any interruption of the hear-ing lasting for more than 1 month or in case of any change in thecomposition of the Chamber, the new hearing need not start fromthe beginning (Article 12); the deadline for an appeal is threedays (Article 15), etc.

As for the criminal offence mentioned in Article 214 of theFRY CC, also initiated were criminal proceedings against mili-tary conscripts who had not received the draft call but, on the ba-sis of their own knowledge, reported to the competent militaryauthorities. Interestingly enough, criminal proceedings were alsoinitiated against persons who had immediately reported to theirmilitary units but the competent authorities, due to omissions andlack of expediency, did not learn about it. Although the groundsfor suspicion were not corroborated by relevant evidence, suchpersons were sued for the qualified form of the criminal offencein question. When the authorities proceeded to detain such per-sons, they established that they had been at their military units allthe time. Regrettably, the number of such cases is not negligible.It is not known that measures were taken against any persons inthe competent military bodies who were discharging their dutiesirresponsibly…

As for the criminal offence mentioned in Article 217 of theFRY CC, criminal proceedings were also initiated against per-sons who would go out, from their units often quartered in pri-vate houses, to a local store for a beer or who, passing by theirplaces of residence, would drop by to inquire about their family.

O~i boje fronta 73

The situation in Montenegro is a particularly interestingcase. Due to the exacerbated political relations between the fed-eral and republic authorities, and ipso facto between the republicauthorities and VJ, call-ups and the already distributed obliga-tory working duty decisions coincided. Conscripts were in twominds: to accept the decision on obligatory working duty andkeep their jobs but be held answerable for boycotting the militaryauthorities, or to respond to the draft call and fail to accept the de-cision on their working duty thus putting in jeopardy their jobs.The decision seems to have been mostly taken on the basis ofone’s political attitude because there were a large number of in-stances where criminal proceedings were initiated against per-sons who gave preference to the obligatory working duty.

Investigations were, frequently, conducted by security of-ficers, in accordance with the powers under Article 6 of the men-tioned Decree but quite often in a manner contrary to the provi-sions of the Law on Criminal Procedure (LCP) concerning thehearing of the defendant, warning him of his rights regarding hisdefence as well as regarding the facts of no relevance to the crim-inal offence which he stood accused of. Illegal files were createdin practice of persons with political motives. Often, the intentionwas to prove that it was persons susceptible to vice (taking nar-cotics and the like) and with opposition predilections that wereinclined to commit such criminal offences.

However, the Military Prosecutors, under Article 9 of theabove mentioned Decree, often issued direct indictments withoutconducting investigations although they concerned the criminaloffences punishable by extremely long terms of imprisonment.

Under Article 70, paragraph 2 of the Law on Criminal Pro-cedure, immediately after an indictment was issued an ex officiocounsel for the defence was appointed because in the beginning


only a very low number of defendants retained a counsel at theirown free choice. The lawyers were appointed from the lists es-tablished by the Bars. The Bar in Belgrade, for instance, madeavailable to the Military Courts some 50 lawyers who gavefree-of-charge legal counsel. However, the Courts were also con-tacted, of their own free will, by a number of other lawyers whoalso declared their readiness to give free legal counsel. Most of-ten, lawyers were informed by phone of the initiated criminalproceedings and that they had been appointed ex officio counselsfor the defence; they met their clients at the previously scheduledmain hearing; the communications between the counsel for thedefence and the accused were made very difficult. The defendantwould be brought out of detention to the main hearing where hemost often and immediately confessed to having committed thecriminal offence in question.

A large number of trials were held in absentia without tak-ing into account the conditions stipulated in Article 300 of theLCP although this provision had neither been annulled noramended under the Decree. Under Article 300, paragraph 3 ofthe LCP, a defendant may be tried in absentia: (1) if he is inflight, or (2) if he is inaccessible to the authorities and there areimportant reasons for him to be tried though he is absent. It wasnot established whether the defendant was in flight – that factwas taken for granted. It transpired that there were numerouscases of military conscripts who had, through no fault of theirown, not received the draft call, were not informed or had a justi-fied reason not to respond to the draft. The fact about flight wasmore or less correctly presumed for those who left their unit…As a rule, the cases contain no evidence indicating that the defen-dants, being tried in absentia, were really inaccessible to the au-thorities! Finally, the courts do not explain which particularly

O~i boje fronta 75

important reason prompted them to try persons in absentia!? Dueto such a negative attitude to the rights of the “absent one” and,one can say, to the accused himself, the trials were short and thepronounced terms of punishment extremely long! The courtsprobably reckoned that the defendant concerned would invokehis right under Article 410, paragraph 1 of the LCP and requestthe review of proceedings. However, it should be borne in mindthat the review of proceedings may be requested only within ayear as of the knowledge on the existence of the judgementpassed against such a person in absentia. The imprecision of theterm “as of the knowledge” often represents a dire fact and theconvict is usually, due to the seriousness of the sentence, put indetention! Here an example of the reviewed criminal proceed-ings: The accused N.R., aged 21, unemployed worker, draftregistrant, was sentenced in absentia to eight (8) years inprison for his escape from his military unit. He started serv-ing his term on February 25, 2000. The first-instance courtallowed the review of proceedings, issued the indictment, sus-pended the serving of the sentence and ordered detention un-til the completion of the main hearing. Criminal proceedingsare underway.

Wishing to be as expeditious as possible, the militarycourts did not dwell too long on checking with the counsels forthe defence on the reasons for which the defendants did not re-spond to the draft calls nor the fact that they had or had not re-ceived the call-up to report to their units. A large number of con-scripts changed their addresses, moved out of their parents’apartments, etc. but failed to inform the military departments oftheir new address. This fact was sufficient for the court to find theaccused guilty. It is true that the obligation exists for a person toreport his address also to the military authorities, but failure to do


so is only a minor offence and does not prove the intention of amilitary conscript to unjustifiably boycott the draft. Failure to re-spond to a call-up must represent a deliberate act by that con-script showing that, although he has received the draft call, hedoes not wish to respond to it. The court, hence, has to prove theguilt and not a priori to consider a conscript guilty unless he him-self proves the contrary.

However, the case in Ni{ is more drastic because con-scripts were called via the media – the local TV and radio stations– that announced a list of military garrisons for which mobilisa-tion was underway. The report by those media was taken as evi-dence that the defendant had been properly called-up for mobili-sation. Hence, the courts took as an established fact that the mili-tary conscript was within the viewing and hearing range of thesemedia and that each and every inhabitant by all means watchesand listens to (or has to watch and listen to) these TV and radiostations!?

As a rule, the court heard what the call-up couriers as wellas the closest relatives of the defendant had to say on whether thedefendant had actually known about the call-up or not. However,the closest relatives were not warned that they were privilegedwitnesses and that, as such, they needed not testify (Article 227of the LCP). The court concluded from the confession by theclosest relatives that the call-up couriers had really come to de-liver the draft call, that the defendants knew of the call and thatthey went into hiding and this then resulted in charges for agraver, i.e. qualified form of the criminal offence mentioned inArticle 214 of the FRY CC.

O~i boje fronta 77

V. NUMBER OF PERSONS WHOBOYCOTTED THE DRAFT AND OFPERSONS WHO DESERTED FROMTHE YUGOSLAV ARMY

The general public was not presented data on the numberof sent call-ups nor on the number of persons who boycottedthem. The public was told that the number of persons respondingto these call-ups was above all expectations, that the number ofdeserters was “insignificant”1 and that this attested to a highlypatriotic act. On the other hand, the problem arose in the territoryof the Republic of Montenegro of “target mobilisation” of pre-dominantly persons from the ranks of the political groups thathad a critical attitude to the official policy of FRY. As a coun-ter-measure, the authorities in Montenegro introduced the oblig-atory working duty. High-ranking officials publicly refused toreceive draft calls. In a highly politicised atmosphere, a numberof people were encouraged to boycott the draft. This politicalproblem, following the cessation of the state of war, was re-solved when the Assembly of Montenegro enacted the Amnesty

12

Daily “Danas” (Today) of September 2, 1999. President of the Supreme MilitaryCourt in Belgrade, General Miloš Gojkoviæ, stated: “ It is a great luck that the numberof deserters in the past war was insignificant compared to the number of thecalled-up.”

Law2 whose legal nature prompted less of a legal and more of apolitical debate.

There are further also many different conjectures aboutthe number of persons against whom criminal proceedings wereinitiated for failure to respond to the draft call and for evasion ofmilitary service (Article 214 of the FRY CC) and for wilful de-parture and escape from VJ (Article 217 of the FRY CC). Thus,in the broadcast “Interview of the Day” on Radio B2-92, theChairman of the Yugoslav Committee of Lawyers for HumanRights claims that, according to their sources, “there are in Ser-bia 11,000 to 14,000 initiated proceedings but we haven’t re-ceived reports from all the military commands. According to ourdata from Montenegro, 14,000 indictments have been submittedand this has been confirmed by the Government of Montenegroand the Helsinki Human Rights Committee in Montenegro3”.The same person, recalling the statement made by the Chief ofthe Legal Service of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army(currently former), presented the datum about 28,000 indict-ments rendered against persons who had committed militarycriminal offences4. This claim is totally imprecise because it doesnot specify which criminal offences are at issue (“military crimi-

O~i boje fronta 79

2 The Law was published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro” No.44/99 of November 22, 1999. This law acquits from criminal prosecution and fromcriminal sanctions under the valid judgements the persons who committed the fol-lowing criminal offences in the period from June 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999: failure torespond to the draft call and evasion of military service – Article 214; evasion of mil-itary service by incapacitation or delusion – Article 215; unlawful freeing from mili-tary service – Article 216, wilful departure from and desertion from VJ – Article 217;evasion of regulations and check-ups – Article 218; failure to meet the material obli-gation – Article 219, as prescribed by the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia.

3 Yugoslav Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights: “Amnesty – Campaign, Law,Cases”, Belgrade, p. 71.

4 Ibidem, p. 94.

nal offences”); to which period of the commission of criminal of-fences it refers (“currently issued in Yugoslavia”); how manypersons are prosecuted (“28,000 indictments”); etc. Regardlessof the politicisation of the issue of responding to the draft inMontenegro, the datum on as many as 14,000 indictments shouldbe taken with a grain of salt! It should further be borne in mindthat the Podgorica Military Court’s jurisdiction covers also a partof Serbia.

To better understand the difficulties associated with estab-lishing the approximate number of persons who failed to respondto the call-up during the state of war (March 25 to June 24, 1999),the reader is advised to take note of the stages of criminal prose-cution and procedure:

1) pre-criminal procedure is the stage when the administrative au-thorities file criminal complaints with the Prosecutor’s Office,i.e. inform the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the persons towhom the call-up was delivered and who failed to report to thecompetent military authorities, as well as of the persons towhom the call-up could not be delivered. On the basis of thesedata, the Military Prosecutor’s Office activates the MilitaryCourt. According to the numerous talks with the counsels for thedefence and our own sources, 22,000 criminal complaints havebeen filed against persons who failed to respond to the draft (un-der Article 214 of the CCY). The Military Prosecutors’ Officesstarted the processing of a half of those criminal complaintsholding the view that no criminal proceedings should be initi-ated against persons who had only been several days late in re-sponding to the call-up. At the same time, it was established thatmilitary departments had out-of-date information because alarge number of military conscripts had already been with theirmilitary units and at their military duties and the military depart-ments did not have any up-to-date information about it. We be-


lieve that there are still cases that have not been processed at theMilitary Prosecutor’s Office;

2) preliminary procedure – the Military Prosecutor’s Office sub-mits a request to the military investigating judge to conduct aninvestigation or particular investigating acts; or

3) direct issuance of indictment (which happened in the majority ofcases), if the Military Prosecutor’s Office disposes of sufficientevidence to do so; and

4) main hearing when the court passes judgement on the criminalcase at hand.

According to our findings, the number of accused personsfor the criminal offence of failure to respond to the draft and eva-sion of military service under Article 214 in connection with Ar-ticle 226 of the FRY CC is around 7,000 and for the criminal of-fence of wilful departure and escape from VJ under Article 217in connection with Article 226 of the FRY CC it is around 700.

Until the cessation of the state of war, of these 7,700 crimi-nal cases in around 970 cases a legally binding judgements werehanded down. In the territory of two military courts in Vojvodina(at the Novi Sad Corps and at the Command of the Military Dis-trict Novi Sad), judgements were passed in 235 cases out of the450 initiated proceedings. Most cases, i.e. around 200 related tothe criminal offence mentioned in Article 214 of the FRY CC.Thirty-five cases concerned the criminal offence mentioned inArticle 217 of the FRY CC. 347 requests were submitted to theSupreme Military Court for special commutation of sentences:185 cases in 1999 and 162 requests in the course of 2000. All thesubmitted requests were finalised. The majority of the submittedrequests were granted and the sentences commuted to the legalminimum of one year for the criminal offences mentioned in Ar-

O~i boje fronta 81

ticle 214, paragraphs 2 and 3 and Article 217, paragraphs 3,4 and5 in connection with Article 226, paragraph 2 of the FRY CC, i.e.suspended sentences were given to persons convicted of thecriminal offences mentioned in Article 214, paragraph 1 and Ar-ticle 217, paragraphs 1 and 2 in connection with Article 226,paragraph 1 of the FRY CC if the legal conditions permitted. Therequests were, as a rule, complied with if the convict had re-ported or returned to his unit within up to 20 days and had thenspent the entire period at the unit. Only 20 requests were rejected.

Around 20 pardon requests were submitted. Not a singlehas been finalised.

According to our sources, no amnesty law is in the processof being drafted or enacted.

It should be mentioned in particular that the above figuresdo not include the cases from the region of Kosovo. As is wellknown, the Albanians were either not called-up to join the mili-tary service or, if called-up, they, for the most part, did not re-spond. The authors do not know of any relevant proceedingsthere.


VI. ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC CASES

In accordance with the gathered data, we have analysed 43criminal cases from the area of three military courts, out of which23 were tried under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of Yugosla-via and 20 on the basis of Article 217 of Criminal Code of Yugo-slavia.

The mentioned 23 cases tried under Article 214 of theCCY were concluded in the following way: 9 accused were sen-tenced to imprisonment, in 2 cases a suspended sentence waspronounced, 1 person was fined and against 2 persons proceed-ings were stayed, in 6 cases the charges were rejected and oneperson was acquitted.

The given 20 cases tried under Article 217 of the CriminalCode of Yugoslavia were concluded as follows: 16 accused weresentenced to imprisonment, 3 were given suspended sentencesand in 1 case charges were dismissed.

A final judgement has been handed down in the majorityof cases; we also had decisions of the Supreme Military Court onmotion for special commutation of sentence granted. We hadtalks with a number of defence counsels who told us their obser-vations on legal issues and conducted criminal proceedings. Wegive here the most characteristic cases, according to committedindividual criminal offences.

FAILURE TO REPORT FOR MILITARYSERVICE AND DRAFT EVASION (ARTICLE 214OF THE CC FRY) – 23 CASES

1. The accused D.J., 34 years old, a chemical technician, adraft registrant, convicted to one year prison sentence forfailing to report to his war unit (RJ) without a valid reason,although he was informed that he had been called up onMarch 24, 25 and 26, 1999.

The accused argued that on those he days he had been with hiswife and two children at his cousin’s wedding in Montenegro.When he found out about the state of war, he tried to contact hisparents by phone, but the line was bad. Only on April 2, 1999 hisfather informed him by a cable that he had received a mobilisa-tion call. On that same day he departed for Belgrade and re-ported to the military department where he was detained andhanded over to the court. During hearing of evidence the Courtinspected the telegram, but remained convinced that the accusedhad probably learned earlier of the call-up. However, the Courtdid not find the existence of the qualified form of this criminalact criminal offence under paragraph 2, as it was not proved thatthe accused was in hiding.

The appeal of the accused was not granted. the motion for spe-cial commutation was approved and a suspended sentence waspronounced because the accused “went to his unit immediatelyand stayed there for full two months, all that time was a goodsoldier, although he had serious health problems which is whythe Lower Military-Medical Commission found him temporarilyunfit for military service…”

�


2. The accused Z.R., 37 years old, a mechanical technician, adraft registrant, was convicted to at least 6 (six) months inprison, for failing to appear in his RJ, although his father re-ceived his call-up on March 28, 1999.

The accused defended himself by claiming that since February,1999 he was in a village more than 300 kms away from Belgradeand that he learned of his call-up on April 24, 1999 upon his re-turn to Belgrade. He reported to the military department onApril 25, 1999. At the main hearing the father confirmed all alle-gations of the accused. The Court did not lend credence to hisstatement of the accused and his father because they were “im-plausible and calculated with the intent of avoiding criminal re-sponsibility of the accused”.

The appeal of the accused was rejected and of the military pros-ecutor granted so that the accused was sentenced to 2 (two)years of prison.

�

3. The accused D.R., 29 years of age, customs officer, a draftregistrant, sentenced to 1 (one) year in prison for hiding inorder to avoid his military service by changing place of resi-dence without informing competent authorities accordingly.

The accused defended himself by claiming that he did not knowabout the call-up and was on his regular duty in the Customs Ad-ministration, as well as that he spent several nights at his girl-friend’s place. When he learned about the call-up on April 4,1999 in a notice left on the front door of his apartment, he imme-diately reported to the military department. The court did notlend credence to his statement being of the opinion that the ac-cused “...knew full well that he was on the military police forceas his war duty station, which means that he could count on be-ing called up to the Army of Yugoslavia in the first days of war”.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided his appeal.

O~i boje fronta 85

�

4. Draft registrant Z.P., 40 years old, transportation techni-cian, charged for reporting to his RJ only on April 5, 1999 al-though he had been called-up on March 24, 1999.

In his defence the accused claimed not having received the draftcall, because at that time he had been mobilised and was on warduty in the Monitoring Service. On April 5 his wife informedhim that they were looking for him and that he should report tothe military department, which he did. The Court established allthese facts in the probative proceedings. Military Prosecutorstood by his indictment. However, the Court acquitted the ac-cused of all charges.

�

5. The accused S.T., 30 years of age, an electrician, a draftregistrant, was sentenced to 1 (one) year of prison for not re-porting to his RJ, without a valid reason, on March 25, 1999but on April 2, 1999, although his father knew for his call up.

In his defence the accused claimed that he learned about thecall-up only on April 2, 1999 when he reported to the militarydepartment. His father informed the call-up courier that his sonwas away. The Court heard the father, but did not give credenceto his statement.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided the appeal.

�

6. The accused S.Dj., 33 years old, with completed secondaryschool education, a draft registrant, was sentenced to a sus-pended sentence of unjustifiably failing to report to his RJon March 23, 1999 when his mother was informed of hiscall-up, but only on April 5, 1999.


In his defence, the accused said that he was temporarily workingabroad so that his mother informed him by phone on March 28,1999 on the call-up and he was unable to get to Belgrade beforeApril 4, 19999, as well as that he made his contribution indowning the F-18 aircraft for which he was awarded.

The Supreme Court rejected the military prosecutor’s appealand confirmed the sentence of the first-instance court.

�

7. The accused G. @., 33 years old, electrical technician, adraft registrant, was sentenced to 1 (one) year in prison forhiding in order to avoid doing his military service, by report-ing on March 25, 1999 to his RJ, but since he could not behanded his call-up, he reported on April 24, 1999.

The accused pleaded that he had not been living at the men-tioned address since 1995, but failed to report the change of ad-dress to the competent authorities. However, when he learnedabout the call-up, he immediately reported to the military de-partment. After hearing the evidence, the Court did not give cre-dence to the statement of his parents. In the Court’s opinion itwas due to the negligence of the accused that the call-up was notdelivered.

The appeal of the accused was rejected.

�

8. The accused S.A., 53 years old, a draft registrant andworker, was sentenced to 3 (three) months in prison for un-justifiably failing to report to his RJ.

In his defence the accused said that he couldn’t receive thecall-up on March 24, because he went for his medical check up.He received the call-up on March 25, 1999. At the same time, hewas told at his place of work that he would be issued a decision

O~i boje fronta 87

on obligatory work duty and would lose his job if he left his post.He also said that he was sick, and that his left side was partiallyparalysed. The Court did not take into consideration these obvi-ous reasons, although he had inspected the decision on workduty made by his enterprise.

The Supreme Military Court took into account the appeal of theaccused and annulled the sentence of the first-instance court be-cause it failed to establish the facts. Namely, in the meantime,the Military Medical Commission proclaimed the accused unfitfor army service.

�

9. The accused V. R., 54 years old, a draft registrant, wasconvicted to 6 (six) month prison sentence for refusing to re-ceive his call-up and failing to report to the Yugoslav Armywithout any reason on April 3, 1999.

In his defence the accused stated that he was of poor health andthat he had spent four months on the Dubrovnik war theatre in1991/92.

�

10. The accused V.R., 37 years old, a draft registrant, wor-ker, was sentenced to 6 months in prison for unjustifiablyfailing to report to his RJ during the state of war and whilethe country was being attacked.

He defended himself by claiming that he was not aware that itwas a call-up he was being served because he was excited ex-pecting the birth of his second child.

�


11. A suspended sentence was pronounced to 50 years old ac-cused L.R., with secondary school education and draft regis-trant, for not showing up in his RJ by refusing to receive hiscall-up without a valid reason.

The accused claimed in his defence that he had a decision onwork duty which was why he refused to take the registered mailfrom the postman.

�

12. The accused Z.M., 36 years old, a mechanical engineerand a draft registrant, was sentenced to 1 (one) year inprison for not reporting to his military unit in response to ageneral call-up broadcast on TV-5 Ni{ on March 24, 1999without a valid reason. He reported on April 29, 1999.

The accused defended himself admitting that there was a gen-eral call-up on the Ni{ TV-5 and that numbers of military garri-sons were also given. However, he did not check his servicebook. Several days later a friend of his from the same unit toldhim that they would receive individual call-ups. He stated thathe got his personal call-up on April 28, 1999 and reported to RJimmediately the next day. As proof the Court presented the re-port of TV-5 which showed the number of the military garrisonof all draft registrants.

The Military Court has not yet decided the appeal.

�

13. The accused I.P., 43 years old, a mechanic and a draftregistrant was fined with dinars 3,000 for not reporting tothe unit on March 15, 1999 although he received his call-uppersonally.

The accused pleaded that he refused to receive the call-up be-cause he was revolted for being called-up and that he went to see

O~i boje fronta 89

some military officer and told him that he was sick because ahalf of his shoulder-blade was missing and his family situationwas very serious, that he participated in the 1991 war. He statedthat already on March 17, 1999 he was in military hospital. TheCourt did not find that the criminal offence was committed dur-ing the state of war.

The case is still in the Supreme Military Court.

�

14. The accused M.M., 42 years old, a draft registrant, adriver, was convicted to 4 month prison sentence for failingto respond to the individual call-up of May 26, 1999 and be-cause, after being brought in for questioning by the MilitaryPolice (MP) on May 28, 1999, he left the MP official premiseswithout asking permission and voluntarily reported to theMP only on June 2, 1999.

In his defence the accused said that his mother had given him hispersonal call-up and that he had reported on his own. He admit-ted leaving the MP premises, but said that he had done that be-cause he had been drinking heavily there and was unable to con-trol himself. He went to Belgrade to see his brother and immedi-ately returned and reported to the MP sincerely regretting his be-haviour. The Court did not admit legal formulation from the in-dictment of the qualified form of the criminal offence.


�

15. The accused I.J., 25 years old, tradesman and a draftregistrant, was sentenced in absentia to 6 (six) months inprison for leaving the country on March 22, 1999 with theintention of evading draft.

The chamber reached the decision on the basis of the statementof the parents of the accused that their son was abroad and photo


copy of his passport enclosed by his defence counsel (!?) whichproves that the accused was abroad.

�

16. 34 years old draft registrant Z.M., a locksmith, was ac-cused for failing to report to his military unit although hehad personally received his call-up on April 2, 1999. Allcharges were dropped because the Court determined at themain hearing that the accused had regularly reported to hisunit.

�

17. Draft registrant Z.O, 31 years of age and a graduate me-chanical engineer was charged for failing to report to hismilitary unit although he had personally received his call-upon April 4, 1999. All charges were dropped because theCourt determined at the main hearing that the accused hadproperly reported to his unit.

�

18.Draft registrant P.M, 30 year old, with secondary schooleducation was accused of failing to report to his military unitalthough he had personally received his call-up on March24, 1999. All charges were dropped because the Court deter-mined at the main hearing that the accused had properly re-ported to his unit.

�

19. Draft registrant V.R, 37 years of age and a mechanicaltechnician was charged of failing to report to his militaryunit although he had personally received his call-up on

O~i boje fronta 91

March 30, 1999. All charges were dropped because theCourt determined at the main hearing that the accused hadproperly reported to his unit.

�

20. Draft registrant P.G, 38 years of age and unemployedwas accused of failing to report to his military unit althoughhis mother had received his call-up on March 28, 1999. Allcharges were dropped because the Court determined at themain hearing that the accused had regularly reported to hisunit.

�

21. A worker and draft registrant I.R., 24 years of age, a la-bourer, was charged of failing to report to his military unitalthough he had personally received his call-up on March31, 1999. All charges were dropped because the Court deter-mined at the main hearing that the accused had properly re-ported to his unit.

�

22. Criminal proceedings were instituted against 31 yearsold draft registrant S.M. because he failed to report to hismilitary unit on March 25, 1999 although he was informedof his obligation by his brother who had received his call-up,and despite warning of the call-up courier that he had to re-spond to the draft call. The proceedings were stayed becausethe Military Prosecutor dropped the charges after deter-mining that the accused had not been living in Yugoslaviasince 1963 and therefore could not have been informed ofthe content of his draft call.


�

23. Criminal proceedings were instituted against 34 yearsold draft registrant B.[. because he failed to report to hiswar unit on March 29, 1999 and because his call-up couldn’tbe delivered as he had changed his residence without report-ing the change to the competent authority. The proceedingshave been stayed by military prosecutor’s abandonment ofall action as during preparations for the main hearing hehad determined that the accused had regularly reported thechange of the place of residence and therefore could nothave be informed of the call-up.

WILFUL DEPARTURE AND DESERTION FROMTHE ARMY OF YUGOSLAVIA (ARTICLE 217 OFTHE CRIMINAL CODE OF FRY) – 20 CASES

1. The accused Z.M., 30 years old, a farmer and draft regis-trant was sentenced to 1(one) year in prison for wilfully leav-ing his unit. On that same day he was apprehended andplaced in detention. Charges were dropped against him forcriminal offence of grand larceny of goods in the value of di-nars 70,000 from Kosmet.

In his defence the accused pleaded that on May 23, 1999 thewithdrawal of forces was ordered so that with his truck hestarted towards the specified points. There were rumours thatthe army was on the run as the soldiers were scared because ofthe heavy losses. For the mentioned goods he said that other sol-diers, who took these things from the abandoned houses aroundKosovo, had put them in the trucks which were his property.Later on, during a road check-up they denied having done this.The Court lent credence to the statement of his superiors that nowithdrawal order had been issued, but that “they were unable to

O~i boje fronta 93

stop the soldiers who got on the trucks and went home”. As faras the criminal offence of grand larceny was concerned, theprosecutor dropped the charges.

The appeal of the accused was rejected, but the request for spe-cial commutation of sentence granted so that the accused wasgiven a suspended sentence “for getting mentally ill in war con-ditions – suffering from anxious depression, and among otherbecause of his grandfather’s cardiac infarction…”

�

2. The accused G.Dj., 35 years old, a worker and draft regis-trant, was sentenced to a combined sentence of 1 (one) yearand 6 (six) months in prison: namely, for the offence fromArticle 217 of the FRY Criminal Code to one year and oneyear for grand larceny from Article 166, of the CC of Serbiabecause he wilfully deserted from his unit and appropriateda large quantity of goods in Kosovo.

The accused argued that on May 25, 1999 his superior told himthat all other units had wilfully left their combat stations and thatonly their unit was left. Then someone said that they should alsoleave, which they did. As far as the thing were concerned, hesaid that “he found the things which Shqipetars had probablyleft when running away, and that he took them…” At the mainhearing, the superiors of the accused confirmed that “the units ofthese soldiers have abandoned the frontline and that they wereunable to stop them”, and that “he did not order the soldiers toremain at their combat stations and return to their war duty sta-tion, because he left with them”.

The appeal of the accused was rejected, but the special motionfor commutation of sentence was granted so that a combinedsentence of 8 (eight) months was pronounced to the accused be-cause he had returned to his war unit and because he also hadcertain mental problems.


�

3. The accused D.Z., 43 years old, a farmer and draft regis-trant was sentenced to 1 (one) year and 6 (six) months inprison for leaving his unit on two occasions – once for 7hours (April 9, 1999) and once for 4 days (April 11 to 15,1999).

In his defence the accused stated that the first time he went on abinge to different city cafes and the second time he went to seehis family and girl-friend and ended up in a cafe.

The Supreme Military Court granted the appeal of the accusedand reduced his prison sentence to 1 (one) year.

�

4. The accused I.T., 38 years old, a locksmith and draft regis-trant was given a suspended sentence for wilfully leaving hisunit on two occasions – the first time on April 12, 1999 for 2hours and the second time on April 27, 1999 for 3 hours.

In his defence the accused stated that the first time he went to ashop some 50 meters from his unit to have a beer, and the secondtime he went home to help his wife take up some things from thecellar and then stopped at a restaurant for a drink. The Court de-termined that the accused was a good and conscientious soldier.

The Supreme Military Court confirmed this sentence.

�

5. The accused D.S., 43 years old, unemployed and draft reg-istrant was sentenced to 3 (three) months in prison for wil-fully leaving his unit on May 19, 1999, going home and re-turning to his unit after 8 hours of absence.

O~i boje fronta 95

The accused stated that he was a farmer with a wife and threechildren who were left without any means of livelihood. He wasforced to go home in order to do some work in the fields.


�

6. The accused Dj.P., 49 years old Albanian, a waiter and adraft registrant, was convicted to 10 (ten) months in prisonfor failing to return to his unit after his approved leave of ab-sence from the unit till April 14, 1999.

The accused defended himself by saying that apart from mis-trust and troubles he suffered on the part of his fellow-nationals,he had been frequently called-up and always answered the call,so that he even spent some time in the war theatre. As a result ofa traffic accident, he had frequent headaches and loss of balance,and the approval to report to the lower-instant military-medicalcommission, but stayed at home.

�

7. The accused N.R, 21 years old, an unemployed workerand a draft registrant was sentenced in absentia to 6 (six)months in prison for deserting from his military unit. He isserving his sentence as of February 25, 2000. The first in-stance court allowed the review of proceedings, issued theindictment, interrupted the execution of punishment and or-dered detention until the end of the principal process. Crim-inal proceedings are underway.

�

8. The accused B.K., 23 years old, an unemployed workerand a draft registrant, with previous convictions was sen-


tenced to 1 (one) year in prison for wilfully leaving his uniton June 6, 1999.

In his defence, the accused said that he asked his superior officerfor a two-day leave to visit his sick mother. As he did not get it,he wilfully left his unit. He reported only when he got the sum-mons from the investigating judge. The Court determined thatthe accused was an exemplary soldier and a candidate for thesquad leader, that he was an insufficiently mature person. But,the Court did not determine whether the accused had reallyasked permission to visit his sick mother.

The judgement is not final.

�

9. The accused Z.R., 26 years old, a sales officer, doing hisarmy service was given a suspended sentence for returningfrom the approved sick-leave on April 21, 1999, instead onApril 11, 1999.

The accused claimed that a civilian surgeon from his home townextended his sick-leave up till April 23, 1999 which he reportedto the military department. However, the department failed toinform his unit so that he had to return to his unit before his ex-tended sick-leave was over. The Court confirmed the defence ofthe accused, determined that the accused had returned to his unitalthough he was still limping, as well as that he carried out allentrusted tasks without any objection, but refused to recognisethe sick-leave granted by a civilian doctor.

�

10. A 23 years old accused Moslem F.B., employed abroad,was sentenced in absentia to 7 (seven) years in prison forfailing to return to his unit on April 30, 1999 from the ap-proved leave.

O~i boje fronta 97

�

11. The accused D.S., 38 years old, a worker and a draft reg-istrant, was convicted in absence to 7 (seven) years of prisonfor wilfully leaving his unit on April 6, 1999 and failing to re-turn.

�

12. The accused R.B., 27 years old, a Moslem doing his armyservice and a worker, was convicted in absence to 6 (six)years of prison for failing to return to his unit after the ex-piry of his approved weekend-leave on April 29, 1999.

�

13. The accused N.K., 20 years of age, a Moslem doing hisarmy service, was convicted in absence to 7 (seven) years ofprison for failing to return to his unit on May 1, 1999 afterthe approved leave.

�

14. The accused S.K., 28 years of age, doing his army servicewas convicted in absence to 8 (eight) years of prison becausehe never returned to his unit from the approved leave whichexpired on May 5, 1999.

�

15. The accused M. @., 20 years of age, a worker doing hisarmy service, was convicted in absence to 5 (five) years ofprison for wilfully leaving his unit on April 2, 1999 andnever returning.


�

16. The accused M. Dj., 21 years old, a worker serving thearmy, was convicted in absence to 5 (five) years of prison forwilfully leaving his unit on March 30, 1999 and failing to re-turn.

�

17. The accused Moslem K.D., 22 years of age, a car-me-chanic serving the army, was convicted in absence to 3(three) years of prison for failing to return his unit from hisapproved leave which expired on May 1, 1999.

�

18. The accused Moslem A.A., 21 years of age, a workerserving the army, was convicted in absence to 3 (three) yearsof prison for failing to return his unit from his approvedleave which expired on May 10, 1999.

�

19. The accused D.[, 37 years of age, was convicted in absen-tia to 7 (seven) years of prison for failing to return from hisapproved leave which expired on May 4, 1999 and never re-turning to his unit.

�

20. Reserve sergeant D.T., 43 years of age, a worker, wascharged for wilfully leaving his duty on May 19, 1999 and re-turning on May 20, 1999. Charges against him were rejectedbecause it was determined at the main hearing that the ac-cused left his unit with an orderly permission.

O~i boje fronta 99

CONCLUSION:

A large number of criminal cases has not been resolved.These cases are like a sword of Damocles hanging over theheads of many young people. A number of these young menfear that these criminal proceedings might be (ab)used forpolitical purposes. The campaign for legal conclusion of the-se cases should be intensified: (1) by staying criminal pro-ceedings, if the indictment has not been issued; (2) by staying,i.e. suspension of the execution of final court judgements; (3)by increased pressure on the public opinion for the adoptionof the Amnesty Law in order to immediately release all im-prisoned persons.

August, 2000.


Izve{taj Centra za antiratnu akciju

po projektu O~i boje fronta,o licima koja se nisu odazvala vojnom pozivuili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavije tokom natointervencije u SR Jugoslaviji

Centar za antiratnu akciju uspe{no je okon~ao rad naprojektu O~i boje fronta. Projekat je imao velikog odjeka ujavnosti, a sa dobijenim rezultatima posebno su upoznati mediji,druge nevladine organizacije i eksperti.

Projekat je otpo~eo je da se realizuje 1. aprila 2000. godinei trajao je do 1. oktobra 2000.godine, zna~i {est meseci.

Istraìvanje sprovedeno u okviru Projekta imalo je zaosnovni cilj da, {to je mogu}e preciznije, utvrdi koliko lica senije odazvalo vojnom pozivu i koliko se samovoljno udaljilo izjedinica Vojske Jugoslavije za vreme NATO intervencije u SRJugoslaviji. Pored toga, cilj Projekta je bio i da se posebno prou~inekoliko desetina karakteristi~nih slu~ajeva, kako bi se sagledaleokolnosti pod kojima je protiv ovih, uglavnom mladi ljudi, vo-|en krivi~ni postupak i kako bi im Centar, na najcelishodnijina~in, organizovao pruànje pravne i humanitarne pomo}i.

Prvi korak u istraìvanju je bio da se, {to preciznije, utvrdibroj lica koja su krivi~no gonjena, jer se nisu odazvala vojnom

pozivu i time izbegla vojnu slu`bu (~lan 214. Krivi~nog zakonaJugoslavije – KZJ) i jer su se samovoljno udaljila iz VojskeJugoslavije (~lan 217. KZJ). Ova dva krivi~na dela trebalo jesagledati u vezi ~lana 226. KZJ, odnosno ka`njavanja za krivi~nadela koja su izvr{ena za vreme ratnog stanja ili u slu~aju ne-posredne ratne opasnosti.

Stvarno nadle`ni sudovi za navedena krivi~na dela suvojni sudovi. U skladu s Zakonom o vojnim sudovima, ovisudovi sude svim licima, prema tome i civilima, za krivi~na delaiz ~l. 201-236 KZJ, zna~i i za krivi~na dela 214. i 217 KZJ, u vezisa krivi~nim delom iz ~l. 226. KZJ.

Istraìvanje je obuhvatilo celu teritoriju SR Jugoslavijekoju pokrivaju tri prvostepena vojna suda, koji se nalaze uBeogradu, Ni{u i Podogorici. Za vreme trajanja ratnog stanja, ato je bilo od 25. marta 1999. do 24. juna 1999. godine, or-ganizacija ovih sudova je promenjena. Tri postoje}a prvostepenavojna suda prestala su s radom, a pri odre|enim vojnim je-dinicama formirano je 20 ovih sudova. Pored toga, osnovana su idva odeljenja Vrhovnog vojnog suda. Po prestanku ratnog stanja,svi krivi~ni predmeti su raspore|eni u pomenuta tri prvostepenavojna suda. Ovo je istraìva~ki posao u~inilo sloènijim i du-gotrajnijim.

Dodatnu oteàvaju}u okolnost u istraìvanju predstavljalaje i ~injenica da nadle`ni organi ni do danas nisu prezentovalipodatke o broju poslatih vojnih poziva neposredno pre i za vremeNATO intervencije, kao ni o broju lica koja se nisu odazvalaovim pozivima. U javnosti je samo plasiran neodre|en podatakda je broj lica koja se nisu odazvala vojnom pozivu “bezna-~ajan”.

Istraìvanjem u okviru Projekta do{lo se do podataka da jeza krivi~no delo neodazivanja pozivu i izbegavanja vojne slu`be


iz ~l. 214. KZJ, a u vezi s ~l. 226. KZJ, optuèno oko 7.000 lica,dok je za krivi~no delo samovoljnog udaljavanja i bekstva izVojske Jugoslavije iz ~l. 217. KZJ, a u vezi s ~l. 226. KZJ,optuèno oko 700 lica. Istraìvanjem je utvr|eno da je do za-vr{etka trajanja ratnog stanja pravosna`no okon~ano oko 970predmeta, ali da veliki broj preostalih predmeta i danas jo{ uveknije kona~no re{en, jer su u toku postupci po àlbi, kao i molbi zapomilovanje. Dinamika presu|ivanja po ovim predmetima zna-~ajno je usporena, {to ukazuje na nesigurnost sudskih organa upogledu daljeg postupanja i odlu~ivanja, a time i prvazilaènjaovog {irokog dru{tvenog problema.

Postupanje prvostepenih vojnih sudova bilo je razli~ito,odnosno kaznena politika nije bila ujedna~ena. Ovo je posebnobilo izraèno u prvim danima sudovanja, kada su vojni sudoviizricali drasti~ne kazne, kako radi uticaja na odziv vojnih ob-veznika, tako i zbog neiskustva. Tako na primer, prvostepenisudovi su licima koja su se u bilo koje vreme vratila u vojnujedinicu, izricali kaznu zatvora u trajanju uglavnom od godinudana za krivi~no delo iz ~l. 214. stav 2. KZJ. Razlog za ovo leì u~injenici {to su vojni tuìoci, po pravilu, sve obveznike koji nisudo{li u ratnu jedinicu optuìvali za teì oblik krivi~nog dela,zna~i za skrivanje, iako za to nisu imali nikakve pouzdanedokaze. Time su svesno izbegavali primenu odredbe iz. ~l. 214.stav 1. KZJ (nedolazak bez opravdanog razloga..), odnosno op-redeljivali su se za teì oblik krivi~nog dela koji je utvr|en ustavu 2. istog ~lana (krije se da bi izbegao obavezu...). U ovomdrugom slu~aju nije se mogla izre}i kazna manja od jedne godinezatvora.

Dodatni problem za ova lica predstavljala su i javna obe-}anja sudija da }e im te kazne biti opro{tene posle rata, do-no{enjem zakona o amnestiji ili pomilovanjem. Naàlost, do

O~i boje fronta 103

toga nije do{lo, a kako su se ti ljudi ose}ali i kako su mogli daizvra{avaju ratne zadatke na koje su bili upu}ivani odmah poizricanju kazne, moè se samo pretpostaviti. Takve kazne za-tvora vi{e se nisu mogle ublaìti u postupku vanrednog ub-laàvanja, jer se radi o delima za koja se ni ublaàvanjem nemoè izre}i kazna blaà od jedne godine zatvora (~l. 214. stav 2. i3. u vezi sa ~l. 226. stav 2. i 3. KZJ). Tako su ova lica, zbogpogre{ne pravne kvalifikacije dela od strane vojnoih sudova,dovedena u bezizlaznu situaciju.

Pored ovog, karakteristi~no je i da su sudovi u Srbiji iCrnoj Gori razli~ito postupali. Tako su prvostepeni sudovi uSrbiji, po pravilu izricali kazne zatvora u trajanju od jednegodine za krivi~na dela iz ~l. 214. stav 1. i 2. i ~l. 217. stav 1. i 2.KZJ, dok su se sudovi u Crnoj Gori opredeljivali za lak{i oblikovih krivi~nih dela, zna~i za ~l. 214. stav 1. i ~l. 217. stav 1. KZJ,te su izricali kazne zatvora u trajanju od 3 do 6 meseci. Za-jedni~ko im je bilo da su licima u odsustvu, a to su lica koja su popravilu oti{la u inostranstvo, izricali visoke kazne zatvora, uproseku od 6-7 godina.

Kasnije, Vrhovni vojni sud je zauzeo kriterijume u ciljuujedna~avanja kaznene politike, ali se ni tada nije vodilo do-voljno ra~una o istinskoj idividualizaciji kazne.

Istraìvanjem u okviru Projekta posebno su obra|ena iprou~ena 43 karakteristi~na predmeta sa podru~ja sva tri vojnasuda, i to 23 predmeta po osnovu ~lana 214. KZJ i 20 po osnovu~lana 217. KZJ. Prou~eni su sudski spisi ovih predmeta i obav-ljeni razgovori sa osu|enim licima i njihovim braniocima. Cen-tar je bio spreman da ovim osu|enim licima pruì pravnu pomo}.Me|utim, sva ova lica su imala obezbe|enu pravnu pomo} i bilisu zainteresovana samo za prijem humanitarne pomo}i. Od na-vedena 43 predmeta, Centar je izabrao 20 predmeta, zna~i 20


osu|enih lica, za dodelu humanitarne pomo}i. Dominantni kri-terijumi za izbor osu|enih radi dodele humanitarne pomo}i bilisu: okolnosti izvr{enja dela i vo|enja krivi~nog postupka, stepeniskazanih gra|anskih i politi~kih uverenja, kazna koja im jeizre~ena, visina tro{kova koje su u toku sudskog postupka imalikao i njihovo, odnosno porodi~no imovinsko stanje.

Na projektu su radila tri pravnika i vi{e saradnika, od-nosno istraìva~a. Prvu ocenu projekta dali su upravo oni koji suradili na njegovoj realizaciji. Njihova zajedni~ka ocena je da suispunjeni zadaci postavljeni predlogom projekta. Drugu ocenudali su nadle`ni organi Centra koji su prevashodno konstatovalida predmetna pitanja projekta ne smeju da budu tabu tema na{egdru{tva, ve} da o tome treba govoriti otvoreno, javno i argumen-tovano. Centar je zaklju~io da je ovaj vrlo zana~ajan projekatizveden u veoma te{kim uslovima i da su kroz samostalno or-ganizovan istraìva~ki rad prikupljeni odgovori koji u velikojmeri osvetljavaju predmetni problem. Imaju}i u vidu ~injenicuda nadle`ni dràvni organi nisu objavili nikakve korisne i upo-trebljive informacije, kao i da druge nevladine organizacije ipojedinci nisu izvr{ili sli~na istraìvanja u ovom obimu, Centarsmatra da je ovaj projekat dao odgovore na postavljene zadatke itime ispunio svoje ciljeve.

Razmatraku}i ovaj sloèn dru{tveni problem, Centar jesagledao sve iznete okolnosti i ~injenice, te je konstatovao da jetrenutno najaktuelniji problem taj {to veliki broj mladih ljudi~eka na izvr{enje izre~enih kazni i {to nadle`ni organi ne na-gove{tavaju dono{enje Zakona o amnestiji u cilju prevazilaènjatog problema.

Imaju}i sve izloèno u vidu, naro~ito u kontekstu ukupnogdru{tvenog stanja u SR Jugoslaviji, Centar se opredelio za na-stavak rada u predmetnoj oblasti i u tom cilju sprovodi}e od-govaraju}e aktivnosti, i to:

O~i boje fronta 105

• 1. da zajedno s drugim nevladinim organizacijama pre-dvodi kampanju koja }e imati za cilj da se u Srbiji hitnodonese zakon kojim bi se amnestirali svi zatvoreni i obu-stavali svi sudski postupci i time neutralisao ovaj velikidru{tveni problem. Ukoliko se Zakon ne donese u ra-zumnom roku, ova kampanja }e da preraste u svojevrstanpritisak na reìm.

Ovo tim pre {to je Centar predlagao i podrào do-no{enje Zakona o amnestiji Crne Gore (novembra 1999),kojim su osloba|ena od krivi~nog gonjenja i izvr{enjakrivi~nih sankcija po pravosna`nim presudama, sva onalica koja su u periodu 1.6.1998.–30.6.1999. godine, iz-vr{ila i krivi~na dela iz ~l. 214. i 217. KZJ.

• 2. da zajedno s drugim nevladinim organizacijama pred-vodi kampanju za usvajanje neophodnih zakonskih pro-mena kojim bi se u potpunosti i bez ikakve diskriminacijestvorili uslovi za kori{}enje ustavnog prava na prigovorsavesti. Time bi se omogu}ila realizacija prava na civilnosluènje vojne obaveze. U ovom slu~aju, Centar }e sezalagati za nametanje shvatanja da se prigovor savestipodnosi iz uverenja, a ne zbog kukavi~luka ili iz interesa.

• 3. da nastavi s pra}enjem predmetne problematike i so-cijalne situacije, s ciljem daljeg pruànja pravne i hu-manitarne pomo}i.

Po uspe{nom zavr{etku rada na projektu, sa~injen je ovajizve{taj.

Tekst projekta i izve{taja prevedeni su na engleski i fran-cuski jezik i publikovani su.


Report of theCenter for Antiwar Action

on the projectEyes the colour of the frontline,about the persons who evaded the draft or desertedfrom the Yugoslav Army during the NATOintervention in the FR of Yugoslavia

The Center for Antiwar Action has successfully com-pleted its work on the Project Eyes the Colour of the Frontline.The Project attracted great attention of the public, while the me-dia, other non-governmental organisations and experts were spe-cially informed on its results.

The work on the Project started on April 1, 2000 and wascompleted on October 1, 2000; i.e. it took six months for prepara-tion.

The research carried out within the Project was basicallytargeted at the most precise possible determination of the numberof persons who failed to respond to their draft call and personswho wilfully deserted from the Yugoslav Army units during theNATO intervention in the FR of Yugoslavia. Apart from that, theProject objective was also to study several dozen characteristiccases in order to establish circumstances under which criminal

proceedings were initiated against these mostly young men, sothat the Center could organise the most appropriate provision oflegal and humanitarian assistance.

The first step in this research was to determine as preciselyas possible the number of persons who were criminally prose-cuted for failing to respond to the call-up and thereby evadedmilitary service (Article 214 of the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia– CC) and for wilfully deserting from the Yugoslav Army (Arti-cle 217, FRY CC). These two criminal offences had to be ob-served in relation to Article 226 of the FRY Criminal Code, i.e.punishment of criminal offences committed during the state ofwar or in case of an immediate threat of war.

The military courts are competent for the mentioned crim-inal offences. Under the Law on Military Courts these courtsprosecute all persons, including civilians, for criminal offencesfrom Articles 201-236 of the FRY Criminal Code, meaning thatthey are in charge of trying criminal offences from Articles 214and 217 of the Criminal Code of FRY related to the criminal of-fence from Article 226 of the Criminal Code of FRY.

The research covered the entire territory of the FR of Yu-goslavia, which is under the jurisdiction of three first-instancemilitary courts located in Belgrade, Niš and Podgorica. Duringthe state of war, which lasted from March 25, 1999 to June 24,1999, the organisation of these courts was changed. The three ex-isting first-instance military courts suspended their work, while20 new such courts were established in specific military units. Inaddition, two Chambers of the Supreme Military Court were alsoestablished. After the suspension of the state of war, all criminalcases were distributed to the mentioned three first-instance mili-tary courts. This made this research more complex and time con-suming.


An additional difficulty was posed by the fact that to thisvery day the competent authorities have neither presented dataon the number of call-ups sent immediately before and duringNATO intervention, nor on the number of persons who failed torespond to this draft call. The public was only vaguely informedthat the number of persons who failed to respond to the call-upwas “insignificant”.

According to the findings of Project research some 7,000persons were charged for the criminal offence of failing to re-spond to draft call and draft evasion from Article 214 of theCriminal Code of FRY in connection to Article 226 of the Yugo-slav Criminal Code, while for the criminal offence of wilful de-parture and desertion from the Yugoslav Army from Article 217of the CC of the FR Yugoslavia related to Article 226 of theCCY, some 700 persons were accused. The research establishedthat until the end of the state of war a final judgement was handeddown in some 970 cases, but that there remained a great numberof unresolved cases because the submitted appeals or pardon pe-titions have not been decided yet. The pace at which these trialsare progressing has been significantly slowed down, which po-ints to the indecision of the judicial authorities as to which fur-ther course of action to take and decisions to make, and thusovercome this grave social problem.

The first-instance courts applied different procedures, orbetter said their punitive policy was not uniform. This was partic-ularly evident in the first days of their work when Military Courtspassed drastic sentences, partly in order to thus influence mili-tary conscripts to respond in larger numbers and partly due to thelack of experience. For example, persons who returned to theirmilitary units at any time, first-instance courts punished by oneyear in prison for the criminal offence from Article 214, para-

O~i boje fronta 109

graph 2 of the Criminal Code of FRY. Reason for this is that Mil-itary Prosecutors, as a rule, charged all draft registrants whofailed to report to their military unit for serious criminal offence,i.e. for hiding, although they had no reliable proof of that.Thereby they consciously avoided the application of provisionsof Article 214, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of FRY (failureto appear without justified reason), or better said they choose tocharge them for a more serious criminal offence specified inparagraph 2 of that same Article (hiding with an intention ofavoiding draft). In such case it was impossible to pass more le-nient sentence than one year in prison.

An additional problem for such persons were public prom-ises given by the judges that these sentences would be forgivenafter the war by the adoption of the Amnesty Act or that thosesentenced would be pardoned. Regrettably, this did not material-ise and we can only assume how those people felt and how capa-ble they were of carrying out war assignments entrusted to themimmediately after the pronouncement of their sentences. Suchprison sentences couldn’t be commuted in the special commuta-tion procedure because the offences at issue were such that noteven by way of commutation could a more lenient sentence bepronounced than one year in prison (for offences mentioned inArticle 214, paragraphs 2 and 3 in connection with Article 226,paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia). It hasthus happened that these young people, due to the incorrect legalqualification of the offence by the Military Courts, found them-selves in a hopeless situation.

In addition, it is characteristic that Courts in Serbia andMontenegro treated such cases differently. Consequently, for themost part, first-instance courts in Serbia pronounced sentencesof up to one year on average for the criminal offences mentioned


in Article 214, paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 217, paragraphs 1and 2, of the CC of Yugoslavia, while courts in the territory ofMontenegro, opted for less serious form of criminal offences,both from Article 214, paragraph 1 and Article 217, paragraph 1of the FRY CC, and pronounced sentences from 3 to 6 months.The only thing common to courts from both Republics is thatthey pronounced heavy prison sentences averaging from 6 to 7years to absent persons who, as a rule, went abroad.

Later on, the Supreme Military Court developed criteriafor passing sentences with a view to making the punitive policymore uniform, but even then insufficient attention was devotedto individual aspects of punishment.

As a part of Project research we have particularly analysedand studied 43 characteristic criminal cases from the area underthe jurisdiction of all three military courts, out of which 23 weretried under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia and20 on the basis of Article 217 of Criminal Code of Yugoslavia.We have studied court documents and conducted talks with theconvicted persons and their defence counsels. The Centre waswilling to provide legal assistance to all these convicted persons.However, legal assistance was already provided to all of themand they were only interested in ways of obtaining humanitarianaid. Out of the mentioned 43, the Center choose 20 cases, i.e. 20convicted persons to receive humanitarian aid. The prevailingcriteria in selecting the convicted persons to whom the humani-tarian aid would be supplied were: circumstances under whichthe act was committed and the manner in which the proceedingswere conducted, degree of demonstrated civic and political be-liefs, the pronounced sentence, the amount of expenses they hadduring their trial, and their own, as well as their family’s materialsituation.

O~i boje fronta 111

The Project team included three lawyers and a number ofassociates, i.e. researchers. Those who worked on the Projectwere the first to give their opinion of it. Their common impres-sion was that all tasks set in the Project assignment have been ful-filled. The Centre’s competent authorities who, in the first place,thought that topics treated by the Project must not remain off lim-its in our society, but must be discussed openly, publicly andwith arguments were the second to evaluate the Project. TheCentre came to the conclusion that this important Project wascarried out under very difficult conditions and that through inde-pendently organised research work it managed to gather data thatshed more light on this subject matter. Bearing in mind the factthat the competent state authorities have not published any usefulor practical information, nor that any other non-governmental or-ganisation or individual have carried out research work of simi-lar scope, the Centre has come to the conclusion that this Projecthas provided answers to tasks it was entrusted with and hasthereby achieved its goal.

Studying this complex social problem, the Center has ob-served all presented circumstances and facts and came to theconclusion that at this moment the most acute problem is the factthat a great number of young people are still waiting to servetheir pronounced sentences and that the competent authoritieshave not shown any intention to adopt the Amnesty Act, whichwould help to overcome this problem.

Bearing in mind all the above-presented facts, especiallyin the context of the overall social situation in FR Yugoslavia, theCenter has decided to continue its work in this problem area and,to that end, to carry out the following activities:

• 1. Together with other non-governmental organisations, tolaunch a campaign aimed at the most urgent possible


adoption of the law in Serbia according to which all im-prisoned persons would be pardoned and court proceed-ings stayed and by which this major social problem wouldbe neutralised. Unless this law is passed within a reason-able time limit, the campaign would be transformed into aspecial kind of pressure on the regime.

The more so as the Center proposed and supportedthe adoption of the Amnesty Act of Montenegro (in No-vember 1999) under which all persons who between June1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 committed criminal offencesfrom Articles 214 and 217 of the FRY Criminal Code wereacquitted from criminal prosecution and execution of cri-minal sanctions passed in binding judgements.

• 2. Together with other non-governmental organisations, tolaunch a campaign for the adoption of necessary legalchanges, which would fully and without any discrimina-tion, create conditions for the exercise of the constitutionalright to conscientious objection. This would also ensurethe exercise of the right of young men to perform their mil-itary service as civilians. In that case, the Center would ex-ert its efforts for the conscientious objectors to be treatedfairly for their beliefs, and not as cowards.

• 3. To keep monitoring this problem area and social situa-tion so as to continue to provide the necessary legal andhumanitarian aid.

This Report has been prepared upon the successful com-pletion of the work on this Project.

Texts of the Project and Report have been translated intoEnglish and French and published.

O~i boje fronta 113

CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji

Narodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd

342./42(497.1)"1999"

O^I boje fronta : projekat Centra za aniratnu akciju o licima kojase nisu odazvala vojnom pozivu ili su pobegla iz Vojske Jugoslavijetokom NATO intervencije u SR Jugoslaviji / (urednik Vesna Pe{i}). -Beograd : Centar za antiratnu akciju, 2000 (Beograd : Alnari print). - 113str. ; 21 cm

Upor. tekst na srp. i engl. jeziku. - Tira` 500.

ISBN 86-82297-37-X

ID=87745292

o^i boje fronta - mreža za izgradnju mirao^i boje fronta* projekat centra za antiratnu akciju o...

Documents