Mehinovic v. Vuckovic

Decision Date29 April 2002
Docket NumberNo. CIV.A.1:98-CV-2470-M.,CIV.A.1:98-CV-2470-M.
Citation198 F.Supp.2d 1322
PartiesKemal MEHINOVIC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nikola VUCKOVIC, a/k/a Nikola Nikolac, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

Vinski, phv, Amanda D. Smith, phv, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, CA, Joshua N. Sondheimer, phv, Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, CA, Ralph Steinhardt, phv, George Washington, University Law School, Washington, DC, Gerald R. Weber, American Civ. Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Paul L. Hoffman, phv, Schonbrun DeSimone Deplow, Harris & Hoffman, Venice, CA, for Kemal Mehinovic.

Andrew Yancy Coffman, Parks Chesin Walbert & Miller, Atlanta, GA, Larry Allen Pankey, Miles McGoff & Moore, Cumming, GA, Laura Clair Horlock, Miles McGoff & Moore, Atlanta, GA, for Nikola Vuckovic.

Dorothy Vinski, phv, Amanda D. Smith, phv, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, CA, Joshua N. Sondheimer, phv, Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, CA, Gerald R. Weber, American Civ. Liberties Union Foundation of Georgia, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Safet Safet Hadzialijagic, Muhamed Muhamed Bicic, Hasan Hasan Subasic.

ORDER

SHOOB, Senior District Judge.

                    I. Introduction ....................................................  1329
                   II. Background ......................................................  1329
                  III. Defendant Nikola Vuckovic .......................................  1331
                   IV. The Plaintiffs' Ordeals .........................................  1332
                       A. Kemal Mehinovic ..............................................  1332
                       B. Muhamed Bicic ................................................  1334
                       C. Safet Hadzialijagic ..........................................  1336
                       D. Hasan Subasic ................................................  1338
                    V. "Ethnic Cleansing"—The Context of Defendant's Actions .....  1340
                   VI. Jurisdiction ....................................................  1343
                  VII. Plaintiffs' ATCA and TVPA Claims ................................  1343
                       A. Torture ......................................................  1344
                          1. ATCA ......................................................  1344
                          2. TVPA ......................................................  1347
                       B. Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment .......................  1347
                       C. Arbitrary Detention ..........................................  1349
                       D. War Crimes ...................................................  1350
                          1. Common Article 3 ..........................................  1350
                          2. Grave Breaches ............................................  1351
                       E. Crimes Against Humanity ......................................  1352
                       F. Genocide .....................................................  1354
                 VIII. Liability for Aiding and Abetting ...............................  1355
                   IX. Municipal Law Claims ............................................  1357
                       A. Assault and Battery ..........................................  1357
                       B. False Imprisonment ...........................................  1357
                       C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress .................  1357
                       D. Conspiracy ...................................................  1358
                    X. Damages .........................................................  1358
                       A. Compensatory Damages .........................................  1358
                       B. Punitive Damages .............................................  1359
                
                  XI. Conclusion .......................................................  1360
                
I. Introduction

This is an action for torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and municipal torts brought by four refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina against Georgia resident Nikola Vuckovic,1 a former Bosnian Serb soldier. Plaintiffs allege that Vuckovic committed acts of brutality against them in detention facilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina ("Bosnia") during the so-called "ethnic cleansing" campaign directed against Bosnia's non-Serb population. Plaintiffs are each Bosnians of Muslim ethnic descent.

Trial was specially set for October 22, 2001. When defendant Vuckovic failed to appear, the Court declared Vuckovic in default and struck his answer. The Court then conducted a one-and-a-half day bench trial on the merits. Witnesses included each of the four plaintiffs, the person who first recognized Vuckovic in the United States, and a former senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, Diane Paul, who testified as an expert witness. The Court also accepted the prepared direct testimony of Ms. Paul and physician Vincent James Iacopino, and documentary exhibits submitted in support of plaintiffs' claims.

Upon careful consideration of the evidence presented at trial and the entire record in this matter, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment against defendant for both compensatory and punitive damages as set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law below.

FINDINGS OF FACT
II. Background2

The events at issue in this case took place against the backdrop of the interethnic conflict that engulfed the former nation of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s:

1. The modern Yugoslavian state was established in 1946 as a federation of six republics, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina ("Bosnia"), Montenegro, and Macedonia; and two autonomous provinces, Kosovo and Vojvodina. Generally, people from all of these regions share the same Slavic ethnic origin. (Prepared Testimony of Diane Paul [hereinafter "Paul P.T."] ¶¶ 10-11).

2. At the same time, each of the republics consisted of groups with varying religious and cultural backgrounds. The northern republics of Slovenia and Croatia, due to their geographic location, had close ties to modern-day Austria and other western European powers under the influence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. These areas, accordingly, became predominantly Catholic. The eastern republics of Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia, as well as Bosnia-Herzegovina and the province of Kosovo lived for many years under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under the Ottoman influence, many people in these areas adopted the Islamic faith. The population of Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia, however, remained primarily Christian Orthodox, based on ties to Russia and the influence of the Christian Orthodox church. (Paul P.T. ¶ 8).

3. Bosnia hosted the most ethnically diverse population of the six Yugoslav republics and was unique in that, unlike the other republics, it had no majority ethnic population. According to a 1991 census, approximately 44 percent of Bosnia's population was Muslim, 31 percent Serb Orthodox Christians, or "Serbs," and 17 percent Croatian Catholics, or "Croats."3

4. Overlaying this ethnic patchwork, each of the republics—including multi-ethnic Bosnia—increasingly became home to an emerging "nationalist" identity. (Paul P.T. ¶¶ 10-24).4

5. Though significant inter-ethnic atrocities were committed in this Balkan region during the Second World War, particularly by Croat groups against Serbs, Yugoslavia's post-war Communist leader, Marshal Tito, managed to keep ethnic animosities and separatist nationalist movements under check. (Paul P.T. ¶¶ 10-11). In Bosnia, members of different ethnic and religious backgrounds appear generally to have coexisted peacefully, including in plaintiffs' home town of Bosanski Samac, as plaintiffs testified. Members of each of the three major ethnic groups worked together, intermarried, and served together in government and the military.5

6. The death of Tito in 1980 left a political void, particularly with the concurrent decline of the Soviet Union. Nationalist Serb leaders took advantage of this situation and launched a movement to create a "Greater Serbia" by uniting Serbs throughout the various Yugoslavian republics. Slobodan Milosevic, in 1989 the head of the League of Communists of Serbia, played a significant role in promoting and implementing this vision. (Paul P.T. ¶¶ 12-14).

7. Beginning with the June 1991 declaration of independence by Slovenia, followed months later by Croatia, several of the former republics began to "break away" from the Yugoslavian state. These efforts were met with attacks by the Yugoslavian armed forces ("JNA"), which increasingly came under Serbian control. (Paul P.T. ¶¶ 16-22).

8. In 1991, Bosnian Serb and Serbian military forces began preparing through a variety of measures for a takeover of territory within the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Each republic had been home to a network of weapons stockpiles under the control of "territorial defense" ("TO") units. The TO units were civilian defense units under the control of the government of each republic. By the autumn of 1991, Serbian militias began appearing in Serbian-populated areas of Bosnia. Hoping to avoid a confrontation with the JNA, the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic allowed the "federal" army to confiscate weapons from Bosnian territorial defense units. These weapons went largely to the Serbian militias. JNA units that had been withdrawn from Croatia and Slovenia began openly distributing weapons to Serb militias. (Paul, Trial Transcript, Oct. 23, 2001 [hereinafter Tr. Vol. II], at 8:13— 9:13; 13:16—15:6; Paul P.T. ¶¶ 17, 22-23, 35).

9. On the political front, beginning in 1991, the principal Bosnian Serb political party began establishing so-called "Crisis Staffs" or "Crisis Committees" in Serb-populated municipalities. These committees began preparations for the takeover of power and for the subsequent implementation of plans to "ethnically...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp., 1:06-cv-0627-DFH-JMS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • 26 Junio 2007
    ...1164, 1183 (C.D.Cal.2005). Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 157 F.Supp.2d 1345 (S.D.Fla.2001), and Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1347 (N.D.Ga.2002). In Mujica, the Colombian military and associated groups dropped bombs on civilians, killing 17 civilians and wounding 25 ot......
  • Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 00-56603.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 18 Septiembre 2002
    ..."may be held liable under the ATCA for ... aiding and abetting the actions taken by [foreign] military officials"); Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F.Supp.2d 1322 (N.D.Ga.2002) (noting that among "various sources" for ascertaining the norms of international law as they pertain to the ATCA, "the ......
  • Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, 01 CIV.9882 (AGS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 19 Marzo 2003
    ...at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2002); Cabello Barrueto v. Fernandez Larios, 205 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1333 (S.D.FIa. 2002); Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F.Supp.2d 1322 (N.D.Ga.2002). 31. The other case cited by Talisman, Jafari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 539 F.Supp. 209, 215 (N.D.Ill.1982) is also n......
  • C.D.A. v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 28 Marzo 2023
    ...numerous courts have adopted its elements of crimes against humanity. See, e.g., Jane W., 560 F.Supp. at 886; Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1353 (N.D.Ga. 2002); Doe v. Drummond Co., Inc., No. 09-CV-1041, 2010 WL 9450019, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2010). [38] While the court is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
2 books & journal articles
  • Deploying international law to combat forced labor in immigration detention centers
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 37-1, October 2022
    • 1 Octubre 2022
    ...and renounced as offending internationally recognized norms of civilized conduct”) rev’d on other grounds ; Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (“Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is a discrete and well-recognized violation of customary international law a......
  • ETHNIC CLEANSING AND GENOCIDAL INTENT: CONCEPTUALIZING DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL POPULATIONS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 20 No. 4, October 2021
    • 22 Octubre 2021
    ...U.N. Doe. No. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Dec. 28, 1994); cf. Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 250 n.10 (2d Cir. 1995); Mehinovic v. Vuckovic. 198 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1340-41, 1354-55 (N.D Ga. 2002); SCHABAS, supra note 1, at 221. Ethnic groups, or "ethnical" groups as the Genocide Convention, supra not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT