A Hundred Times Over - Innocent!

General Trifunovic and his Varazdin Corps staff officers faced the second court martial (from April 12 until June 17, 1993), and were acquitted again. This time, the acquittal verdict was given by a judicial board presided by captain Djordje Dozet. After the second trial and the new acquittal verdict, Dozet, like his predecessor, judge Milos Saljic, left the military judiciary system and is working as an attorney today.

Before the second "Varazdin case", the Supreme Military Court asked that Dozet not be given this case, since he allegedly had too low a rank to sentence a general. At the end, the captain did sit in judgment and concluded that there were grounds for suspicion that the members of the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ), Supreme Command Staff as well as the 5th Army group Command, General Trifunovic's superiors, were responsible for the acts with which the officers of the Varazdin Corps were charged. He informed the military prosecutor of all this. The prosecutor never replied yet in the given time he lodged an appeal on the acquittal verdict, which was later annulled.

Even though it was logically expected, Captain Dozet did not get a second chance to hand out a verdict to the General. The practice that a re-trial be held in front of the same board composed of the same members, unless a higher court specifically demands it otherwise, was bypassed in this case. The third trial was scheduled for June 20, 1994, but was immediately canceled due to certain "obstacles".

Well informed sources claimed that the "obstacle" was actually judge Dozet and that they were waiting for him to, as he had previously announced, leave the military judiciary system. Which is exactly what he did in September 1994.

VREME: During the second trial, the court experts were "siding" with the accused. Those same experts, a few months later, had changed their opinions and altered their testimonies quite a bit.

DOZET: I read about that in the newspapers. My acquittal verdict was in a large part actually based on their opinions and observations. At the time, I was of the impression that they had done their job in an extremely professional and correct manner. I don't know what they said later.

Before the trial, there were objections that as a captain you could not try a general. Many, however, believed that a captain, once he had actually gotten the case, would "play along" and after the first verdict was annulled, follow the atmosphere which surrounded General Trifunovic at the time.

The army is a specific institution in which sometimes officers who do not have a formal law education cannot comprehend how it is possible that a general cannot command a lieutenant or captain judge. Certain misunderstandings can then occur. It might all seem strange to some generals, but that's the way it is.

All those who had at the time been connected to the military judiciary system were perfectly aware of who I was and what type of judge I was. I don't believe that any of them expected that I would, even if there had been a suggestion of the sort, "play along". Which is why nobody even tried. Before that case, I had been a judge for ten years. There could not have been any types of political influences in the sense of that the verdict should be such or such. There weren't even any open pressures. I didn't encounter any problems while choosing members of the board and the whole trial went off relatively smoothly. It is a totally different issue that I too felt that atmosphere, that the public was expecting that the new verdict had to sentence them. It could be detected by the way in which many members of the media covered this trial. When I received this case, I saw, for example, that T-84 tanks never existed in Varazdin about which the media had written so much as a given fact. I later saw that the case did not contain most of the things which certain journalists had used to sentence Trifunovic and the others in advance.

Were there any 'angry reactions' after the trial?

None of the other judges showed that they in any way disapproved of what I had done. Many of them were present when I was handing down my verdict and came up to congratulate me afterwards. I did not care much about what the bosses thought of it.

After the trial, you concluded that there was reason to suspect that the members of the political and military top of the time were responsible for what Trifunovic was accused of. Did you ever receive a reply from the prosecutor whom you had addressed?

No, nor did I ask for it, since the prosecutor is not obliged to answer it. I was obliged to make such a move by law. If, during the trial, evidence comes out which points to a justified doubt that another person had committed another criminal act, the judge is obliged to inform the prosecutor of it. It is up to the prosecutor to conduct an investigation, or to decide whether there are any grounds for that or not.

Still, the impression is that you were bypassed in the 'third Varazdin case' because you had pointed out that the responsibility lay within the former political and military top of the country.

It is customary, following an annulment of a verdict, that the case is returned to the same judge and the same board. Unless there is a demand in the decision of the appellate court that the board be changed. I do not remember seeing anything of the sort written there. The case was never handed back to me. I became an attorney in September 1994 and I believe that the new trial commenced later.

Why did you leave the military judiciary system?

As you know, I was captain of the first class and that period in which from captain you become a major is always the turning point. That is when you decide whether you will spend the rest of your working days in the army or not. That was my breaking point. It wasn't my intention to become an attorney. I was exclusively interested in the courtroom and in December 1993 I sent in my application for the position of judge of the civil district court. They were looking for experienced judges and I had 12 years of experience. I was not given that position and I never received an answer. I only know that they chose inexperienced judges. At that moment, when I realized that I could not find a place in the civil judiciary system, I didn't want to go back since I had already announced that I was leaving the army. The only thing left was to become an attorney. And I do not regret it.

Why did you refuse to hear Dr. Borisav Jovic out as a witness? It is evident from his recently published diary notes that he could have been a key witness.

That really wasn't necessary. The whole case was anyway looked at from a much too wide angle. I have already said that, as a Board, we had access to more than enough evidence and witnesses for us to be able to conclude with certainty about all that had occurred in Varazdin. In the courtroom we had, for example, General Veljko Kadijevic and General Blagoje Adzic as witnesses.

Is it true that you had at one time reproached General Momcilo Perisic for refusing to be a court expert in this trial. And that he had answered: "How could I have accepted such a thing, when for days I had been carrying in my bag a bomb with which I was to pass judgment on that traitor"?

(with a mysterious smile) I heard of such a statement, as well.

Well, is it true?

I, too, heard that it was true. No comment.

In what way do you think the "Varazdin case" will finally be concluded?

General Trifunovic and Colonels Raduski and Popov were sentenced on the basis of article 121, which in laymen terms means - treason. There were absolutely no basis on which I could have concluded that there was treason in their case. During the trial that same sentiment was very clearly expressed by both Kadijevic and Adzic - that Trifunovic was not a traitor. By my belief, that criminal act from article 121, that is the undermining of the military and defense power of the country, can be accomplished only by direct premeditation. From the facts which I had at my disposal, it could be deduced that they had no such intention. The question of extreme need also remains controversial. I suppose that these officers' defense lawyers have asked the federal court, the court with the highest jurisdiction in this case, to contest the last verdict by which extreme need cannot be applied. All else is pure politics in which I as a lawyer do not wish to meddle.