On 5 November 2026, the Higher Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Department, delivered a judgment acquitting Behar Prenići/Preniqi of the charge that, from the first half of June 1999 until the end of August 1999, he forcibly displaced the civilian population of Serbian ethnicity from the town of Obilić/Obiliq by setting fire to and destroying at least four family homes owned by Serbs. Prenići/Preniqi spent more than a year in detention, and the detention order was lifted following the delivery of the acquittal.
The Court established as undisputed facts that an armed conflict was taking place in Kosovo at the time of the events in question and that the Serbian population had been displaced from Obilić. However, it concluded that the evidence presented did not establish the defendant’s responsibility for the forced displacement of the population.
In its reasoning, the Court particularly pointed to contradictions in the testimony of two prosecution witnesses, Srđan Denić and Srđan Dimić, as well as inconsistencies between Dimić’s statements during the investigation and at the trial. It is particularly significant that, despite being summoned on several occasions, Srđan Dimić failed to appear before the Court. Consequently, after the evidentiary proceedings had been concluded, the presiding judge reopened the evidentiary proceedings and ordered that Srđan Dimić be summoned to testify once again. His testimony was ultimately found to be unreliable, among other reasons because, at trial, he could not remember certain circumstances about which he had spoken during the investigation. In addition, one of the prosecution witnesses stated that he had been summoned to assess war damage and that he had not known that Prenići was standing trial for a war crime. This circumstance also points to the inadequate preparation of witnesses and the superficial manner in which the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office prepared its evidence. The outcome of the proceedings indicates serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s efforts to prove the charges. The War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office failed to secure sufficiently reliable and mutually corroborating evidence to substantiate the allegations in the indictment.
The Humanitarian Law Center points out that it is the responsibility of the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office to base indictments on high-quality, reliable and mutually corroborating evidence, rather than to rely to a decisive extent on the testimony of a witness who, despite being repeatedly summoned, fails to appear in court, repeatedly refers to the defendant by the wrong surname, and is unable to state clearly and precisely the period during which he was in Obilić, despite claiming to have been an eyewitness to the events. The filing of an indictment must not be an end in itself. Rather, the Prosecutor’s Office must secure evidence capable of reliably establishing the allegations in the indictment and the individual criminal responsibility of the accused.
This case demonstrates the importance of carefully and thoroughly investigating war crimes allegations before an indictment is brought, in order to ensure that they can be successfully substantiated before a court. The failure to prove charges further exacerbates the problem of the insufficient effectiveness of war crimes prosecution before domestic courts and undermines public confidence in the ability of the justice system to ensure accountability for crimes committed.
