On 20 November 2025, the War Crimes Department of the Higher Court in Belgrade delivered a first-instance judgment acquitting Milenko Karlica and Željko Novaković of charges of war crimes against the civilian population committed in the hamlets of Alići and Ekići in the village of Maslovare in June 1992.
According to the court, the Prosecution did not prove the allegations from the indictment, which stated that Milenko Karlica ordered and carried out the killings and displacement of civilians, and that Željko Novaković acted on his orders. The court established that it was undisputed that a group of armed Serbs committed the killings of civilians, but that the indictment failed to clarify the role of Karlica and Novaković in the individual killings committed during the attack on Alići and Ekići, since witnesses identified other persons as perpetrators. The court also found that the Prosecution failed to determine whether the accused were members of a military or paramilitary unit, and therefore treated them as part of a group of armed Serbs.
The Humanitarian Law Center considers that the acquittal of Milenko Karlica is not supported by the evidence and undermines public trust in the judiciary.
The court accepted the revised statements of Stojan and Zoran Kenjalo, who, before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while pleading guilty for the events in Alići and Ekići, had identified Karlica as the organizer of the attack. The court accepted their explanation that they had given statements against Karlica in order to obtain lighter sentences for themselves. However, the court overlooked the fact that the indictment filed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Milenko Karlica preceded the indictment against Zoran and Stojan Kenjalo, and that it was not based solely on their statements.
The Humanitarian Law Center considers the court’s finding that Milenko Karlica saved the women and children from Alići and Ekići and enabled them to reach Urije safely unacceptable, because the very separation of men from women and their relocation indicates that the expulsion and displacement of the civilian population took place. While explaining the judgment, the court did not address the claims of prosecution witnesses that some defense witnesses had been paid to testify in favour of Milenko Karlica.
The Humanitarian Law Center recalls that the indictment against Milenko Karlica was filed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2016, and the indictment against Željko Novaković in 2019, and that after the indictments were merged, the case was transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for War Crimes of the Republic of Serbia. The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina charged Karlica and Novaković with crimes against humanity, covering the period from May to September 1992, including the attack on Alići and Ekići as part of a widespread and systematic attack by the Army of Republika Srpska, the Territorial Defense, military police, and paramilitary formations against the civilian population in the municipality of Bosanski Novi.
Upon taking over the case, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor modified the indictment and charged the accused with a war crime against civilians, narrowing the charges to only 26 June 1992, to the specific day of the attack during which more than 20 civilians were killed. In this way, according to the Humanitarian Law Center, the Prosecution neglected the broader context of the attack on Alići and Ekići and prevented the court from examining the treatment of the Bosniak population in that area over a longer period. Narrowing the indictment also contributed to the court’s failure to consider the statements of the injured female witnesses that soldiers had looted them before removing them from the village.
As in other cases transferred from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Public Prosecutor’s Office for War Crimes remained passive in handling the collected evidence and proposed witnesses, and conservative in its persistent refusal to bring indictments for crimes against humanity. Such an approach narrows the factual framework, prevents the court from understanding the crimes in their true scope, and hinders recognition of the systematic nature of the attacks on the civilian population.
