CASE OF CINDRIĆ AND BEŠLIĆ v. CROATIA
No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković
6. The applicants were born in 1973 and 1975 respectively and live in P. 7. The applicants lived with their parents in A, Croatia. In August 1991 the first applicant joined the Croatian Army and left his home, and in November 1991 the second applicant went to live in Germany. 8. In the second half of November 1991 the Yugoslav People’s Army, together with Serbian paramilitary forces, gained control of A, which thus became a part of the “Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina” (hereinafter “the Krajina”). 9. On 6 January 1992 two unknown men took the applicants’ parents, S.C. and P.C., from their home in A. On 7 January 1992 the bodies of the applicants’ parents were driven by municipal employees in a truck to the front of their house. The applicants’ uncle was called and he gave the municipal employees clothes for the burial of the applicants’ parents. 10. On 7 January 1992 the A police carried out a search of a flat occupied by X in A and found an automatic gun, a hand gun and some bullets. 11. On 7 January 1992 the A police interviewed police officers R.B., M.S., D.J., V.K., M.T., D.K. and M.M. The police officers, apart from R.B., had been on duty at a checkpoint in R. Street in A between 7 p.m. on 6 January 1992 and 7 a.m. on 7 January 1992. 12. R.B. said that on 6 January 1992 at about 7 p.m. police officer X had asked him, R.B., as his hierarchical superior, for permission to take a short leave of absence. He, R.B., had granted the request. R.B. did not know when X had returned to duty at the police station, but thought that he had seen him between 11 p.m. and midnight that same evening. 13. M.S. said that at about 8 p.m. on 6 January 1992 a vehicle had approached the checkpoint and D.J. had stopped it. At that time he, M.S., had been in the barracks. D.J. and D.K. had entered and asked him if he knew a police officer with a birthmark on his face or a Volkswagen vehicle with the number 44 as the last digits on its registration plates, which he did not. At about 10 p.m. the same day, however, he stopped a Volkswagen vehicle which had 44 as the last two digits on its registration plates. The vehicle was driven by police officer X, who was known personally to M.S., D.J. and D.K. confirmed that it was the same vehicle which had passed from the opposite direction at about 8 p.m. 14. D.J. said that at about 8.10 p.m. on 6 January 1992 a vehicle of Volkswagen make had approached the checkpoint and that he had stopped it. The driver had been dressed in the uniform of the civil police. D.J.’s attention had been diverted by a vehicle which had come from the opposite direction and he had stopped it. At that moment the Volkswagen had suddenly started up and left in the direction of K. D.K. told him that he had not had the time to fully examine the vehicle but that he had seen that the driver and the person in the front passenger seat were dressed in the uniforms of the civil police. He had also seen two civilians in the back seat, a man and a woman. D.K. noted down the registration number of that vehicle. At about 11 p.m. the same day police officer M.S. stopped a vehicle which had arrived from the direction of K and asked the other police officers on duty whether it was the same vehicle they had stopped at about 8 p.m., which D.J. confirmed. The only occupants were the driver and the person in the front passenger seat. D.J. asked them who the other passengers had been and where they had taken them. The driver said that the passengers had been S.C. and P.C. and that they had left them in a village. 15. M.T. and D.K. confirmed the above events. 16. On 8 January 1992 the A police interviewed X and Y, two police officers. They both admitted that on 6 January 1992 they had taken S.C. and P.C. in X’s vehicle. On the outskirts of A the police had stopped them. However, the attention of the police had been diverted by another vehicle and X and Y had quickly driven away. They had taken S.C. and P.C. to the village of J. X said that there they had taken S.C. and P.C. out of the vehicle and started walking. He had been carrying an automatic gun and at one point S.C. had attempted to take it from him, resulting in a commotion in which the weapon had fired and killed S.C. After that Y had shot and killed P.C. Y said that X had killed S.C. when they had arrived in J and then forced him, Y, to kill P.C. 17. On 9 January 1992 the A police lodged a criminal complaint with the B public prosecutor against X and Y, alleging that on 6 January 1992 at 10.30 p.m. in J, a village near the town of A, they had killed S.C. and P.C. They had first driven the victims in X’s vehicle to J and taken them out of the vehicle. X had then killed S.C. with an automatic gun and Y had killed P.C. with a hand gun. 18. On 28 January 1992 the B County Court opened an investigation in respect of X and Y on suspicion of killing S.C. and P.C. 19. On 13 April 1992 an investigating judge of the B County Court commissioned a ballistics report. 20. In August 1995 the Croatian authorities regained control of the town of A. In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (“UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate came to an end and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began. 21. On 16 April 1996 the A police interviewed M.C., the brother of the late S.C., who told them that his brother and his brother’s wife had been killed on 6 January 1992. Their bodies had been given to him by the police of the “Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina” and he had been allowed to bury them. 22. On 19 September 2000 the C police interviewed M.M., who said that on 6 January 1992 he had been on duty, together with M.B., at the entrance to village J. At about 9 p.m. he and M.M. had been walking towards a ramp by the barracks where all patrols had their meeting point and had heard a vehicle being driven, followed by several gun shots and then a vehicle starting up again. When they arrived at the meeting point they found Lj.Č., D.J. and M.P. there, who told them that “two fools [had] just brought two people in a car and killed them by the road.” None of the officers on patrol dared go to the crime scene. Soon they all went home. In the morning of 7 January 1992 the police from A came to M.M.’s house and took him to A police station, where they interviewed him and told him that X and his friend had killed S.C. and his wife. He had heard that X had moved to Bosnia and Herzegovina. 23. On 21 September 2000 the C police interviewed the applicants, who had learned from B.Ž., who lived with their parents during the relevant period, that X and Y had been charged with the killing of the applicants’ parents. 24. On 4 January 2001 an investigating judge of the C County Court (Županijski sud u C) ordered an investigation concerning X and Y, who were not available to the Croatian authorities, on suspicion of killing S.C. and P.C. An international arrest warrant was also issued against the suspects, who had absconded. 25. On 8 February 2002 the Ministry of the Interior asked the Ministry of Justice whether extradition proceedings would be instituted against the suspects. 26. On 14 January 2005 Interpol in Washington informed the Croatian authorities that the Department of Homeland Security in Cleveland, Ohio, had a valid location for Y. On 19 January 2005 the Ministry of the Interior informed the Ministry of Justice, asking the latter to institute proceedings for Y’s extradition. On 20 January 2004 the Ministry of Justice asked the C County Court for the relevant documents with a view to seeking Y’s extradition from the United States authorities. All the evidence from the case file was translated into English and on 11 January 2006 the Ministry of Justice sent a “request for [Y’s] temporary arrest” to the US Department of Justice through diplomatic channels. 27. On 10 January 2007 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Ministry of Justice that the US Department of Justice had requested some additional documents. On 10 May 2007 the C County Court sent the requested information and documents to the Ministry of Justice. 28. It appears that on 12 and 13 February 2008 the Croatian and US authorities held consultations in Zagreb in connection with the extradition of Y. 29. On 8 April 2008 the C County State Attorney’s Office again asked the Ministry of Justice to seek Y’s extradition. On 17 June 2008 the Ministry of Justice sent additional documents to the US Department of Justice in connection with Y’s extradition. 30. In April 2009 the US Department of Homeland Security asked the Croatian Ministry of Justice for legal assistance in connection with the criminal investigation pending against Y in the United States on charges of attempted procurement of United States citizenship by fraud, and fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other official documents. They asked for all documents related to any criminal offences Y might have committed. This request was forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office on 7 January 2013. 31. On 26 March 2014 the State Attorney’s Office forwarded the requested documents, translated into English, to the US Department of Homeland Security. 32. In 2002 the Ministry of Justice agreed that an international arrest warrant should be issued in respect of X. 33. On 2 January 2008 an investigating judge of the C County Court asked the competent court in Serbia to hear evidence from X in connection with the killing of S.C. and P.C. On 28 July 2008 the Serbian authorities asked for a certified translation of that request and all relevant documents into the Serbian language. 34. On 13 August 2008 the Croatian Ministry of Justice sent a note to the Serbian Ministry of Justice to the effect that, according to an agreement between the two States, each State party had the right to communicate in its own language and to submit documents in that language without the need for translations. 35. On 18 February 2009 the Serbian authorities heard evidence from X. He said that the criminal proceedings against him and Y for the murder of S.C. and P.C. had been instituted in 1992 in the B Municipal Court and that they had been acquitted. He also denied any involvement in the killing of S.C. and P.C. On 3 March 2009 his statement was forwarded to the Croatian authorities. 36. On 16 March 2006 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the C Municipal Court (Općinski sud u C), seeking non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 500,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) each (about 65,500 euros (EUR)), in connection with the killing of their parents. They relied on sections 1 and 2 of the 2003 Liability Act. 37. On 9 March 2007 the C Municipal Court granted the applicants’ claim and awarded them each HRK 300,000 (about EUR 40,000), finding that the killing of the applicants’ parents had been an act of terror. This judgment was reversed by the C County Court on 3 December 2009. The applicants were also ordered to pay the State HRK 52,500 (about EUR 6,800) in costs, comprising the fees chargeable for the State’s representation by the State Attorney’s Office. The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows: “The plaintiffs in the first-instance proceedings based their claim for damages on the provisions of the 2003 Liability Act .... It is necessary to point to the content of section 3 of that Act, which provides that the obligation to compensate for damage exists irrespective of whether the person responsible has been identified, criminally prosecuted or found guilty. However, having regard to the correct establishment of the facts by the first-instance court, which found that the events at issue had occurred on 7 January 1992 in the village of J, in the then occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia which at that time was under the control of illegal formations of the “Serbian Republic of Krajina” and outside the control of the Republic of Croatia and its lawful bodies, the appellant’s submission that [the killing of the plaintiffs’ parents] ... amounted to war-related damage is well-founded. Section 2 of the Act on the Assessment of War-related Damage ... provides that war-related damage is damage caused by enemy or illegal groups, or legal bodies of the Republic of Croatia, as well as accomplices of these groups and bodies, where that damage occurred directly or indirectly at the time specified in section 1 of that Act (from 15 August 1990 until the end of hostilities and war operations conducted against the Republic of Croatia). Therefore, given the nature, place and time of the events at issue (the killing of innocent civilians in the occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia during the Homeland war), it is to be concluded that the events at issue are to be legally classified as war-related damage and that the appellant is not responsible for them or for the damage thus caused. ...” 38. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 June 2012. The court endorsed the County Court’s finding that the killing of the applicants’ parents amounted to war-related damage and added, in so far as relevant, the following: “Even though the act giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claim for damages presents certain similarities with a terrorist act since [both] imply [an act of] violence, the act of damage [in the present case] differs significantly from terrorist acts in its features since it contains additional elements and amounts to war-related damage for which the defendant is not liable. This is because the damage did not occur in the territory under the de facto sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia but in the then occupied territory, where there was no possibility for lawful action by the bodies of the Republic of Croatia; this circumstance excludes the otherwise objective liability of the defendant. Furthermore, the act of damage in the present case was not carried out with the sole aim of seriously disturbing public order (this being the aim characteristic of an act of terror) but also involved the use of force, killing and expulsion of the civilian population on that territory with the aim of destroying the internal security and stability of the Republic of Croatia and preventing its lawful bodies from functioning. ...” 39. On 1 February 2013 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint. They argued, inter alia, that in a number of its previous judgments the Supreme Court had recognised the plaintiffs’ right to compensation for damage caused by death during the Homeland War in Croatia, and cited seven judgments of that court adopted between 2006 and 2010 (see paragraph 52 below). The constitutional complaint was dismissed on 9 May 2013.