On March 27, 2026, the War Crimes Department of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade rendered a judgment dismissing as unfounded the appeal filed by the defense counsel of the accused and upholding the first-instance judgment of the Higher Court in Belgrade, which found Jovan Novaković guilty of the criminal offense of a war crime against the civilian population under Article 142(1) of the Criminal Code of the FRY and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The imposed sentence is below the statutory minimum for this criminal offense.
By upholding the first-instance judgment, the Court of Appeal accepted the facts established during the trial and the guilt of the accused, but at the same time failed to ensure that the imposed prison sentence reflects the gravity of the crime.
The Humanitarian Law Center considers that the second-instance court gave disproportionately great weight to mitigating circumstances, while failing to adequately assess the gravity of the criminal offense when determining the sentence. It is particularly problematic that circumstances which are, by their nature, questionable or insufficiently reasoned were accepted as especially mitigating. The passage of time should not be used to justify reduced sentences for crimes that are not subject to statutory limitations, particularly in light of systemic delays in war crimes prosecutions. Furthermore, the accused’s proper conduct during the proceedings cannot be of decisive importance, given the inconsistencies in his defense and the absence of remorse.
According to the Court of Appeal, the first-instance court correctly established that Novaković, as the commander of the Moštanica Company of the Bratunac Territorial Defense, participated in the attack on the village of Suha on June 10, 1992, and in the forced displacement of 300 Bosniak civilians, including women and children. The Court emphasized that there were neither security nor imperative military reasons for such actions, given that there were no combat operations in the village and that the residents did not pose a threat. It was also assessed that invoking an alleged danger from other paramilitary formations cannot justify the actions carried out.
The second-instance court found that the judgment of the Higher Court in Belgrade was based on a clearly established factual situation and sufficient, reasoned grounds, containing no contradictions or ambiguities. It was particularly emphasized that the first-instance court properly assessed the defense of the accused as unfounded, pointing to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony, as well as discrepancies with witness statements and material evidence presented. The Court of Appeal accepted the conclusion that the accused’s claims that he was unaware of the forced displacement of civilians, and that he believed it was a temporary relocation for the purpose of signing loyalty statements, were not credible.
Regarding the criminal sanction, the Court of Appeal accepted the assessment of the first-instance court that particularly mitigating circumstances existed, including family circumstances, lack of prior convictions, health condition, and the accused’s proper conduct during the proceedings, and that in this specific case there were no aggravating circumstances. Such a decision on sentencing remains controversial and unacceptable considering the established facts and the gravity of the criminal offense for which the accused was found guilty.
