Today, the verdict has been reached in the case of defendant Zlatko Šimić.
The defendant was charged with personal criminal responsibility for the murder of forty-two Muslims, on the understanding that he, as defined in paragraph 7, clause 1 of the statutes, conspired in a joint criminal enterprise to murder this group of people. For the defendant to be deemed responsible as described, the prosecution must prove that he had entered into an agreement with the group led by Milan Marić to kill these people, and that every single participant in the enterprise, including the defendant, intended to commit this crime. However, the prosecution was unable to convince this court either that the defendant had entered into such an agreement, or that he intended to take the lives of these people.
As has already been established, the charge does not rest on the wider effects of the joint criminal venture, so the defendant cannot be held responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of any joint criminal undertaking in which he may have committed a less serious crime by participating in it. The prosecution was therefore unable to establish proof of the defendant’s participation in a joint criminal enterprise to murder the Muslims locked into the House by the Stream in Pionirska Street.
The prosecution also charged the defendant with personal criminal responsibility for the murder of forty-two persons, on the basis that he assisted and collaborated with the leading perpetrator of this mass murder. In order to establish the defendant’s responsibility as accomplice and collaborator of the chief perpetrator, the prosecution is obliged to provide evidence that the defendant was aware of the perpetrator’s intentions and that the defendant’s actions aided and abetted the crime as planned by the chief perpetrator, constituting a fundamental contribution to it. This court would find it credible that the defendant’s efforts contributed to the cohesion within the group and hence to the execution of the crime as intended by the chief perpetrator, but is not however convinced that the defendant was aware of the perpetrator’s intention, that is, the intention to murder the Koritnik group. It cannot therefore be proven that the defendant was criminally responsible for the murder of the Koritnik group, acting in the role of accomplice and collaborator.
The defendant is therefore found not guilty on the count of murder as stated in item ten of the charge, and not guilty on the count of being an accomplice to the murder as stated in item eleven of the charge.