Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 21 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 4/13/20

Bosnian War: Srebrenica Massacre Reburial Claim Based on Fraudulent Testimony

By       (Page 1 of 4 pages)   No comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 513646
Message Stephen Karganovic
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

False witness Momir Nikolić's bogus evidence was spun to buttress Prosecution's reburial case

(Image by
  Details   DMCA

Key claims on which the Srebrenica genocide narrative is based rest upon the uncorroborated evidence of sole witnesses of dubious integrity. The public have been carefully shielded from knowledge of this fact. Dražen Erdemović is a notorious example with his dubious account of Pilice executions. Dragan Obrenović invented a phone call, of which there is no record anywhere, from Zvornik Brigade security officer Drago Nikolić allegedly informing him of planned prisoner executions. Miroslav Deronjić, as part of his plea bargain with the Prosecution, implicated top Serb military and political figures in the creation of an alleged plan to exterminate Srebrenica Muslims. Another important ICTY plea-bargainer whose statements were used by the Prosecution to fill huge factual gaps in its case was Bratunac Brigade security officer Momir Nikolić. His signed "Statement of Facts and Acceptance of Responsibility" given to the Prosecution is attached below.

When in 2003, several days before his trial was to begin, Nikolić decided to make a deal with the Prosecution in return for a predictable and lighter sentence, like other accused entering into a plea bargan agreement he committed to testify in support of the Prosecution case. There were two critical areas case where Nikolić could help the Prosecution. The first was the Fontana Hotel meetings held in Bratunac on July 11 and 12, 1995, where the Prosecution claimed the Serbian leadership formulated a plan to exterminate Srebrenica Muslims. The other area where the Prosecution case was weak but Nikolić's testimony could help was in proving the number of alleged genocide victims. At the Krstić trial, which had ended slightly over a year before, the Prosecution tried to make up for the disappointing results of exhumations carried out by its own forensic experts by alleging that most victim bodies were missing because they had been reburied elsewhere in order to cover up the prisoner executions. The evidence presented for such a scenario was so thin, however, that even the Chamber was unwilling to lend it much credence.

Momir Nikolić's expressed willingness, in return for a lighter sentence, to testify that he had personal knowledge of the reburial operation and had participated in it was a major development for the Prosecution.

The Fontana Hotel meetings and their implications

According to the Prosecution, the "genocidal plan" was agreed on at several meetings held by the Serbian political and military leadership at the Fontana Hotel in Bratunac. The alleged consensus of those meetings was that the Srebrenica Muslim community would be physically destroyed. Momir Nikolić offered his incriminating account of those meetings, where he was present in the capacity of security officer for the Bratunac Brigade. He essentially confirmed ICTY Prosecution's claim that the main topic was planning for the extermination of Srebrenica Muslims.

The benefit the Prosecution would derive from Nikolić's alleged eyewitness testimony can be seen in the Krstić Chamber's Trial Judgment observations on this topic in 2001.

In Prosecutor v. Krstić, Par. 126-134 and Par. 573 of the 573 Trial Judgment (and also Par. 84, 85, and 91 of the Appellate Judgment) show the importance the Chambers attached to these Fontana Hotel meetings.

Par.73 of the Trial Judgment is an example of how the Chamber draws its preordained conclusions regardless of whether they are supported by factual evidence, or not: "The Trial Chamber is unable to determine the precise date on which the decision to kill all military age men was taken. Hence it cannot find that the killings committed in Potočari on 12 and 13 July 1995 formed part of the plan to kill all the military aged men. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber is confident that the mass executions and other killings committed from July 13 onward were part of this plan."

The Appellate Chamber in Krstić admitted as well that it lacked concrete evidence of what was discussed at the meeting in the Fontana Hotel (the operative phrase in Par. 91 is: "it is reasonable to infer""), but it believed that in light of the totality of circumstances the meeting was an ideal opportunity to formulate such a plan for the "genocidal operation." It then proceeded on the theory that its assumption is what had actually happened (Prosecutor v. Krstić, Appellate Judgment, Par. 91-94).

The Prosecution clearly sought to postulate the meetings at the Fontana Hotel as the Serbian equivalent of the Wannsee Conference in 1942, where Hitler and his staff decided to exterminate European Jews. The neat parallel is spoiled, however, by the fact that for Wannsee we know who was in attendance, the agenda, and the decisions that were made. That was conspicuously (and admittedly) missing in the case of the Fontana Hotel meetings, based on the evidence presented to the Krstić Chamber. Momir Nikolić's claim that the extermination of Srebrenica Muslims was, in fact, the main subject of discussion at the Fontana Hotel bolstered the Prosecution's case significantly, notwithstanding this witness' serious credibility issues.

Nikolić's reburial operation claims

But the Fontana Hotel proceedings, where there were also other witnesses whose testimony could have been considered, was not where Nikolić made his principal contribution as a Prosecution witness. He became a pivotal (and sole, as it turned out) Prosecution witness when he agreed to testify about his personal knowledge of and participation in the reburial operation. The Prosecution was indeed struck by good fortune when shortly after the Krstić trial, where paltry forensic evidence of about 2,000 victims was produced, Nikolić conveniently appeared to volunteer his sensational insights. On the issue of reburials, the Krstić trial judgment remained notably non-committal. While absolving defendant Krstić personally of knowledge or involvement in the alleged cover-up, the Chamber also admitted that evidence that reburial even took place was scarce at that point. While claiming in the Krstić judgment that there was uncited forensic evidence of a "concerted effort to conceal the mass killings by relocating the primary graves," the Chamber also concedes that "the Prosecution presented very little evidence linking Drina Corps Brigades to the reburials and no eyewitnesses to any of this activity were brought before this Trial Chamber." (Krstić Trial Judgment, par. 257)

That was a remarkable critique, almost a rebuke, to the Prosecution case. In plain language, it meant that at that point the case for reburials stood essentially unproved, even from the perspective of the prosecution-friendly trial chamber. Momir Nikolić's timely appearance as just the missing eyewitness soon thereafter filled in the missing details. It occurred at a strategic moment to give the Srebrenica story another lease on life. A few years later the problem of missing bodies was solved more efficiently by means of DNA matches, but that would not have been possible but for the Tribunal's prior acceptance of Nikolić's reburial claims. It was Nikolić's bogus and completely uncorroborated evidence that transformed the remains of what were probably battle casualties of the 28th Division column, as it was making its way from Srebrenica to Tuzla through Serbian ambushes, into the body parts of genocide victims, who later were supposedly even identified by DNA matching on a massive scale.

Momir Nikolić's credibility

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).


Rate It | View Ratings

Stephen Karganovic Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Stephen Karganovic is the president of the Srebrenica Historical Project.  He also writes for Strategic Culture Foundation.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Made to Order Spy Affair Rocks Serbia

Contemporaneous US Government consultations were strangely silent on "Srebrenica Genocide"

Was Clinton's Bombing of Yugoslavia "Worth It"?

New British Documents About Srebrenica

The New Meaning of Genocide

Clinton Era Bosnia War, Precedent to the "War on Terror"

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: