A Bosnian Croat commander who allegedly stood by while a subordinate raped a Muslim woman went on trial before the United Nations war crimes tribunal yesterday.
The case against Mr Anto Furundzija (29), the first prosecution of sexual violence inflicted during interrogation, was also the first to hinge on the events of a single day, the prosecutor, Mr Michael Blaxill, told the court.
"This case is focused on one horrific day in the life of one civilian woman," Mr Blaxill said in his opening address. The prosecution indictment charges that, as local commander of a Bosnian Croat paramilitary unit known as "The Jokers", Mr Furundzija failed to intervene when a subordinate assaulted and raped a prisoner he was interrogating.
Mr Furundzija was snatched by Dutch troops of the NATO-led peacekeeping force last December. His name appeared in one of the tribunal's sealed indictments. The indictment is one of several arising from the "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in the Lasva Valley area of central Bosnia in 1993.
The woman, identified only as Witness A, is one of five prosecution witnesses due to testify before the court, along with a male prisoner identified as Witness D.
"The very core of this case (is) Witness A and the horrendous experiences she recounts having endured at the hands of the accused and his Joker comrades," Mr Blaxill said.
He said Witness A would tell the court how she had been forced to dance naked in front of Mr Furundzija and his fellow paramilitaries and had been repeatedly raped by a soldier nicknamed Cicko as Mr Furundzija interrogated her.
Counsel for the defence, Mr Luka Misetic, said another witness would contradict the account.
"Witness D will tell you that contrary to the allegations Anto Furundzija was not present for any sexual assault," Mr Misetic told the court. "The prosecution case is a one-witness case. The evidence will show that Witness A is wrong - not that she is a liar, but that she is wrong."
The defence counsel said the woman's testimony had changed since her original statement to tribunal investigators in 1995 and evidence she had offered in a previous war crimes trial had been "materially different".
Understandably for one who had undergone such trauma and first tried to suppress it, her memories were inaccurate, Mr Misetic said. "Memory is not a camera . . . memory is an opinion or a belief," he said, adding that the contradictory testimony of Witness D in itself should require the court to acquit on the grounds of reasonable doubt.