VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVB #0121/01 0561514
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 251514Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY ZAGREB
TO RUEAWJA/DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8599

UNCLAS ZAGREB 000121 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR L/LEI (PGUTHERIE), S/WCI (WILLIAMSON, LAVINE), AND EUR/SCE 
(STINCHCOMB, BALIAN) 
 
DOJ/OIA FOR M. DITTOE AND T. MCHENRY 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN KCRM KAWC HR
SUBJECT: ACTION AND FOLLOW UP REPORT FOLLOWING DOJ VISIT TO CROATIA 
 
REF: (A) 07 Zagreb 1074 (B) 07 Zagreb 1000 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY.  Senior DOJ/OIA Trial Attorneys Michael Dittoe and 
Teresa McHenry met with officials from the Croatian Ministry of 
Justice Directorate for International Legal Assistance, Office of 
the State Prosecutor and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss 
extradition issues between the United States and Croatia and a 
number of Croatian requests for extradition, some dating back as far 
as 2005, that are still pending.  The Attorneys also followed up on 
the Croatian request for assistance in securing US witness testimony 
in the Ademi-Norac war crimes trial, which is currently ongoing. 
The results of those discussions, and the actions agreed upon during 
the course of those discussions, as understood by post, are listed 
below.  END SUMMARY 
 
Prospects for a new extradition treaty 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Both sides agree that the existing list treaty from 1901 is 
badly outdated.  However, the GoC still has difficulties with the 
USG requirement for Croatia to agree to extradition of its 
nationals.  DOJ provided MOJ with a list of new EU-member states 
that have agreed to extradition of their nationals. MOJ requested a 
complete list of countries with which the U.S. has extradition 
treaties that permit extradition of nationals. 
 
Croatian difficulties with 60-day clock 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) DOJ clarified that the 60-day clock in which Croatia must 
pick up its fugitive begins tolling from the day of the final 
verdict.  As the defendant has the right of appeal, DOJ would not 
notify Croatia of the verdict until the 30-day mark, when the order 
of extradition was given to the Secretary for signature.  MOJ noted 
that this was not enough time for it to arrange travel of the escort 
officers and obtain the necessary transit permissions.  In response 
to MOJ's concerns, DOJ agreed to notify MOJ when the clock begins, 
and again at the 30-day mark. 
 
Communication between DOJ and MOJ on pending cases 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶4. (SBU) DOJ requested a POC for case specific questions. DOJ noted 
as an example how helpful it was in the recent Pavic case in 
Michigan to speak directly with the prosecutor handling the case. 
As the appropriate party will vary depending on the stage of the 
case, MOJ proposed remaining the primary POC.  It agreed to liaise 
with the Office of the State Prosecutor or Investigative Judge as 
appropriate and arrange conference calls as needed. 
 
Simplification of transmission of requests 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (U) Transmission of extradition requests through diplomatic 
channels is mandated by the treaty.  However, DOJ noted, that 
requirement is satisfied by the request being sent from the Croatian 
Embassy under cover of diplomatic note; it need not also go through 
the Croatian MFA. DOJ and MOJ asked post to present by letters to 
the MFA and MOJ a proposal for post to send future extradition 
requests, following consular certification, directly to the Croatian 
Embassy in Washington. 
 
Changes in Croatian extradition requests 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) MOJ agreed to advise the Croatian judiciary to be more 
discriminate in making requests for extradition.  In addition, it 
will inform judges that requests to the United States must contain 
supporting evidence.  DOJ presented a Croatian translation of an 
explanation of the U.S. extradition process, which MOJ will put on 
its website. 
 
¶7. (SBU) DOJ requested that, in consideration of the level of 
evidence needed to support a request for extradition in U.S. court, 
MOJ only make requests for extradition after the investigative judge 
has issued an indictment. Exceptions could be made in cases 
involving violent crimes in urgent circumstances, such as in the 
case of apprehension at a port of entry en route to a country with 
which Croatia does not have an extradition treaty. MOJ noted that 
submitting only post-indictment cases is a significant change in 
procedure but agreed and would so inform the judiciary. 
 
Status of pending extradition requests 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Discussion of specific pending cases resulted in the 
following conclusions: 
 
Jozo NOVAKOVIC: There is insufficient evidence to support the 
charges of torture and, as assault is not covered by the treaty, the 
request for extradition will be declined. 
 
Iso BJELANOVIC: There is insufficient evidence linking the subject 
to the crime so the request for extradition will be declined. 
However, the subject's case is of interest to ICE and DOJ/OSI; 
witness statements provided by the prosecutor will be passed to 
those offices. 
 
Stevo CVJETICANIN: There is insufficient evidence to link the 
subject to the crime, so the request will be declined. 
 
Zeljko DRACA: It is understood that Croatia will not proceed with a 
formal request for extradition in this case. 
 
Milorad SUSNJAR: The request currently does not contain sufficient 
evidence linking the subject to the crime. However, MOJ may be able 
to obtain this evidence through a request for mutual legal 
assistance asking U.S. authorities for a recent photo of the 
subject, which could be used by witnesses in a photo array. MOJ will 
submit this request within 30 days. If MOJ then determines that it 
wishes to proceed with the request for extradition, it will reopen 
investigative proceedings and bring an indictment against the 
subject, when it may resubmit the request for extradition. 
 
Slobodan MUTIC: MOJ agreed that it would seek an indictment in this 
case, reframed as charges for murder rather than war crimes, and 
resubmit the formal request for extradition in the next 90 days. 
 
Slavko MAZIBRADA: MOJ agreed to correct the mistranslation in the 
original request for extradition and resubmit its request, with 
additional identifying information, in the next 30 days. 
 
Nikola GOLUBOVIC: In response to DOJ's concerns that this case would 
fall under the political offense exception, MOJ agreed to provide 
additional background information to establish that the victims were 
not legitimate targets of war.  MOJ will also in the next 30 days 
provide names of experts with whom DOJ can consult on these issues. 
 
Predrag STRBAC: MOJ agreed to consult with the prosecutor handling 
this case to determine if additional evidence exists that would 
establish probable cause.  MOJ will notify DOJ within 30 days of its 
findings and whether it wishes to proceed with the request. 
 
DOJ to assist in witness testimony for ICTY war crimes transfer 
case 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The attorneys' visit also provided an opportunity to meet 
with the presiding judge in the Ademi-Norac case, an ICTY transfer 
case involving war crimes by Croatian generals against ethnic Serb 
civilians.  Through Post (reftels), Judge Marin Mrcela had requested 
USG assistance in locating victims and witnesses in the US and 
facilitating their testimony, which DOJ is pursuing.  Those requests 
were also submitted formally through the Ministry of Justice.  In 
November, Mrcela had requested testimony of three individuals who 
were known to be located in the US, and recently requested a fourth, 
whose identity is protected.  All individuals are ethnic Serbs and 
either victims or witnesses to alleged crimes committed in 1993 in 
the Medak Pocket operation.  For two of the individuals, the ICTY 
took testimony in the late 1990s, which is admissible in court.  For 
the two others, since their testimony was taken by police, under 
Croatian law it is not admissible in court.  Therefore, their 
anticipated testimony is particularly important. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In facilitating this request, DoJ's Dittoe had previously 
advised what information and evidence DOJ needed to support such 
assistance.  In addition to letters rogatory, US prosecutors need 
previous testimony, witness links to the defendants and alleged 
crimes, and a statement of the Ademi-Norac case and charges.  Based 
on conversations with the judge and his presentation of evidence, 
DOJ has concluded that there is sufficient evidence to locate these 
individuals in the US, and if necessary, compel testimony.  Most 
likely all witnesses will testify via video-link; Mrcela has set 
aside dates in March for the questioning.  The Ministry of Justice 
has been largely absent from this process, although Post understands 
that they have successfully facilitated witness testimony from other 
countries including Serbia, Norway, and Sweden. 
 
¶10. (SBU) As of mid-February, approximately half of the endangered 
witnesses and nearly sixty per cent of non-endangered Serb witnesses 
who had been called in the Ademic-Norac trial have appeared to 
testify.  There are approximately 103 witnesses in total, about 28 
of which, including the four in the U.S., remain to be questioned. 
(NOTE: Of those 28, the judge estimates perhaps 19 will testify. 
Several are critically ill, have refused to testify, or are 
deceased.  Five cannot be located.  END NOTE.)  The case is expected 
to be completed in the next two months. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) COMMENT: DOJ's meetings with MOJ were very successful in 
not only establishing a personal rapport with their counterparts, 
but also in dispelling many of MOJ's misconceptions about the U.S. 
extradition process - and was particularly well-timed, coming on the 
heels of unsuccessful extradition from the U.S. of Goran Pavic. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Over the course of the discussions, it became clear that 
some of the difficulty the U.S. has had with Croatian extradition 
requests arises from the difference between the GoC process with EU 
countries versus that with the U.S.  The evidentiary threshold and 
level of documentation necessary to support extradition requests to 
the U.S. is far higher than that required by EU-member states. As a 
result, the MOJ was unprepared to properly support many of its 
requests to the U.S.  The extradition process is further complicated 
by the lack of clear lines of internal communication within the 
judiciary.  DOJ's visit allowed us to clarify avenues we can use to 
pursue additional information and evidence. Nevertheless, the 
Croatian legal system - including the MOJ - remain burdened by its 
own bureaucratic inertia. 
 
¶13. (SBU) DOJ's visit hopefully impressed upon the MOJ and MFA their 
ability to exercise discretion in forwarding extradition requests, 
and also the necessity for doing so given the significant number of 
unsubstantiated, unprofessionally processed indictments and 
convictions following the war.  The very technical, working level 
discussions brought a better understanding to both sides of the 
vastly different standards of evidence necessary in the U.S. and 
Croatian legal systems and, we hope, will result in more successful 
handling of bilateral extradition requests.  END COMMENT. 
 
BRADTKE 
 
 
UNCLASSIFIED 6 
 
SIPDIS 
 
          UNCLASSIFIED 
 
           UNCLASSIFIED