On 5 June 2026, the War Crimes Department of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade upheld the first-instance judgment in the Vukovar-Proleterska case, sentencing Jovan Radan, a former member of the Serbian Territorial Defence, to seven years’ imprisonment for a war crime against the civilian population – the rape of a woman in Vukovar in October and November 1991.
The Court of Appeals found that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts and properly assessed the evidence presented, and that the victim’s testimony, together with the other evidence, provided a reliable basis for concluding that the accused had committed the criminal offence of which he was found guilty.
Although the final judgment confirms responsibility for sexual violence, these proceedings demonstrate a troubling approach by domestic courts to the prosecution of wartime sexual violence.
In assessing the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the first-instance court cited, as an additional indication of her sincerity, the fact that she had not filed a claim for compensation. The court concluded that “her testimony was not biased or motivated by a desire for revenge against anyone, nor by any material or other benefit, given that the victim stated that she was not seeking anything in relation to a compensation claim.” Such an approach to assessing the testimony of a victim of sexual violence is unacceptable. The credibility of a victim’s testimony cannot be linked to whether she exercises her legally guaranteed right to seek compensation or decides not to exercise that right.
It is particularly concerning that the court adopts such a position in cases of sexual violence [see also the Bratunac II case], where victims are already exposed to prejudice and negative public perceptions of their credibility. Rather than eliminating harmful stereotypes about victims of sexual violence from judicial practice, the court reinforces them by suggesting that a victim’s testimony is more credible when she renounces her right to compensation.
The Humanitarian Law Center maintains that a seven-year prison sentence does not adequately reflect either the gravity of the crime or the consequences that rape has for the victim. It is particularly troubling that the courts considered the accused’s family circumstances and the passage of time as mitigating factors, even though this is a crime that is not subject to a statute of limitations and leaves lasting psychological consequences for the victim, including long-term trauma and stigma. A sentence closer to the statutory minimum indicates that the consequences of the crime and the violence suffered were not adequately taken into account.
The conclusion of these proceedings within a reasonable time frame [the trial lasted two years] represents an important step towards establishing accountability for wartime sexual violence. However, the reasoning of the judgment shows that the domestic judiciary does not follow international standards in prosecuting sexual violence, but instead maintains a practice that discourages victims from reporting crimes and participating in judicial proceedings.
