WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4020/98 by Leonie van BLADEL Review of the war crimes trial of Dragan Opacic in Sarajevo
Date: 1999-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN BLADEL
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, appeal, human rights, legal hearing, the EU's international role, war crime

11.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/113

(1999/C 289/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4020/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(11 January 1999)

Subject: Review of the war crimes trial of Dragan Opacic in Sarajevo

On 2 April 1995 Dragan Opacic, at the time 19 years old and a refugee from Kladusa (Northwest Bosnia)
serving with the Bosnian-Serb army, was taken prisoner by the Bosnian government army. After a short trial
before a court in Sarajevo which did not, in any respect, comply with the criteria governing trials in a
constitutional state, he was condemned six weeks later to ten years in prison for ‘war crimes’. He was alleged to
have committed these crimes against Bosnian Muslims as a guard at Trnopolje ‘concentration camp’. The
Bosnian government then offered him as a witness in the Tadic case heard by the War Crimes Tribunal in The
Hague. During that trial as ‘witness L’ he made detailed and serious accusations against Tadic concerning
crimes alleged to have been committed by the latter (also in the Trnopolje camp).

Tadic’s counsel Prof. Wladimiroff confronted Opacic with so many inaccuracies and contradictions in his
statements that Opacic eventually admitted that he was not a camp guard, had never been in the Trnopolje
camp and had never met Tadic. He stated that the Bosnian authorities had coached him for several weeks to
make a false statement against Tadic on pain of death- Inquiries by Prof. Wladimiroff also revealed that
Trnopolje was not a ‘concentration camp’ but a temporary transit camp for refugees waiting to be transported
to a final destination.

Shortly afterwards, with the connivance of the Dutch authorities and despite his request for asylum, Opacic
was returned by the tribunal to Bosnia where he is now serving the remainder of his 10-year sentence.

Does the Council agree that this affair is a violation of the legal principles practised in the Member States of the
Union? Is the Council prepared to take action aimed, at least, at a review of Opacic’s trial in Sarajevo?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The Council is aware that Mr Opacic has complained to OSCE human rights officers that he did not receive a
fair trial. However, the Council finds it difficult to comment on the fairness of a trial which, like other
proceedings at that time, was not being monitored by the international community.

The Council understands that, on 23 September 1998, Mr Opacic also filed an application to the Human
Rights Chamber established under Annex 6 of the Dayton Peace Agreement to consider alleged violations of
the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial.

This application is pending with the Chamber and the Council is of the opinion that any action it intends to
take in this case should be considered in the light of the decision of the Chamber.

(1999/C 289/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4025/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Cross-border PHARE cooperation programmes

The PHARE programmes run from 1995 to 1999 and they have an indicative financial framework. They
include the cross-border cooperation programme on the basis of which declarations of intent on cross-border
cooperation between Austria and its neighbours have been signed. By virtue of these programmes both sides
have developed an institutional framework for closer cross-border cooperation > and in many cases joint
projects > which receive aid under both Interreg and PHARE.