ORIĆ v. CROATIA
Inadmissible
Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr Savo Orić, is a Croatian national of Serbian ethnic origin, who was born in 1952 and lives in Topolovica. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Jelić, a lawyer practising in Bjelovar. 2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 9 December 1991 the police lodged a criminal complaint with the Bjelovar County State Attorney’s Office against unknown perpetrators on charges of terrorism, alleging that on 5 November 1991 they had learned that there were two corpses in a house in Topolovica. The police had visited the said house and found two bodies, identified as Ljuban Orić and Mara Orić. The crime scene had been photographed. 5. At the request of the applicant, on 15 December 2000 the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Grubišnom Polju) decided that Ljuban and Mara Orić, the applicant’s parents, were presumed to have died on 3 November 1991. 6. In their letter of 22 August 2005 the Bjelovar County State Attorney’s Office qualified the criminal offence as murder and asked the Grubišno Polje Police about the progress of the investigation into the deaths. The latter replied on 31 January 2006 that it had been concluded that the applicant’s parents had been killed in unknown circumstances during a military operation. 7. On 9 November 2006 the Grubišno Polje Police interviewed four people, K.M., I.M., M.S. and J.S., who all lived in Topolovica in 1991. They submitted that between August and November 1991 Toplovica had been occupied by Serbian para-military forces. At the beginning of November 1991 the Croatian forces had entered the village and taken them to another place. When they were leaving they had seen many parts of the village burning. 8. The witness I.M. had returned to the village three days later and entered the house of the Orić family, where he had seen the dead bodies of Ljuban and Mara Orić. The next time he visited the village the house had partly burned down and the roof had fallen in. 9. The witness M.S. submitted that he had been a member of the Croatian Army and on 1 November 1991 when his village, Topolovica, had been taken over by the Croatian army he had seen two copses lying on a bed in the house of the Orić family. He had recognized Ljuban and Mara Orić. Ljuban had had no visible injuries while Mara had been shot. His mother, J.S., had told him that Ljuban had died a natural death because he had not received his medication. Mara had been killed by an unknown person when she had refused to leave the village with the Croatian Army. 10. The witness J.S. submitted that the Serbian para-military forces which had controlled Topolovica had left at the end of October 1991. On the third day thereafter the Croatian army had entered the village. One T.F. had told her that Ljuban Orić, who had been suffering from leukemia, had died because he had not received his medication. 11. The police interviewed J.V. and A.P., the police officers who had carried out the on-the-scene inspection in the house of the Orić family in November 1991, on 7 and 10 March 2008 respectively. J.V. submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms. The woman had been shot in the head and chest. He was not sure about the man, but thought that he had been shot in the chest. He had found bullet cartridges and traces of blood. He had also photographed the crime scene. No other steps had been taken owing to the ongoing war. A.P. submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms and that the house had been burned down. 12. On an unspecified date the applicant sought financial assistance for the reconstruction of his parents’ house. His request was dismissed by the administrative authorities in 2003 on the ground that he had not resided in that house at the time the damage had occurred. The applicant brought the same claim again in 2005. It was dismissed on the ground that the same request had already been decided upon. 13. On 7 February 2007 the applicant, through his legal representative, brought a civil action against the State in the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court, seeking compensation in connection with the death of his parents and the destruction of their property. The claim was dismissed on 3 April 2007 and this judgment was upheld by the Bjelovar County Court and the Supreme Court on 6 September 2007 and 9 April 2008, respectively. The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired. 14. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 9 May 2012. 15. The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings. 16. The relevant part of the Criminal Code (Kazneni zakon, Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/00, 51/2001, 111/2003, 190/2003, 105/2004, 84/2005, 71/2006, 110/2007, 152/2008, 57/2011, 125/2011, 143/2012 and 144/2012) reads: “(1) The criminal prosecution shall be time-barred after: - forty years if the case concerns a criminal offence punishable by long term imprisonment or imprisonment of more than fifteen years, - twenty-five years for a criminal offence punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment, - twenty years for a criminal offence punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment, - fifteen years for a criminal offence punishable by more than three years imprisonment, - ten years for a criminal offence punishable by more than one year imprisonment, - six years for other criminal offences. (2) Criminal prosecution for the crime of genocide (Article 88), aggressive war (Article 89), crimes against humanity (Article 90), war crimes (Article 91) and other criminal offences which are not subject to statutory limitation according to the Constitutional or international law. (3) If before the expiry of the time-limits under paragraph 1 of this Article, a first-instance judgment has been passed, the statutory limitation periods shall be extended for further two years.”