This post is part of our Video as Evidence Field Guide seriesRead more about the Field Guide here or below.

In this post, we look at a case study where video was used in criminal proceedings against a Serbian politician at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This case study illustrates why it can be as important to film in the aftermath of a crime as it is to film the crime in progress. It is available as a downloadable PDF here. This case study should be read in conjunction with the section, After: Filming Secure Human Rights Scenes, posted here or downloadable here.


Slavko Dokmanović
Slavko Dokmanović

In November of 1991, Serbian soldiers moved over 200 individuals from a hospital in the town of Vukovar, Croatia to a prison camp on a farm called Ovčara. Here, the soldiers beat their prisoners for several hours and then shot and killed them. Slavko Dokmanović was the President of the Vukovar Municipality at the time. He was charged by the ICTY for: i) his personal participation in the actual beatings and killings; and ii) aiding and abetting in the beating and willful killing of these 200 plus individuals.

Dokmanović pleaded not guilty, alleging that he could not have committed these crimes because he was nowhere near the farm at the time of the massacre. To prove it, his defense attorney introduced a video of Dokmanović and his colleagues traveling in a car along rural roads with a time and date stamp that matched the time and date of the killings. He argued that this video proved he wasn’t at the farm when the killings occurred. In other words, Dokmanović gave the court an alibi video.

Disproving the Alibi Video

The prosecution didn’t believe him – nor did they trust the video. So the prosecution deployed a crime-scene investigator named Vladimir Dzuro to travel to Vukovar. With camera in hand, Dzuro hopped in a vehicle and retraced the route Dokmanović claimed he took on the afternoon of Nov. 21, 1991, recording the drive in the same way the defense claimed Dokmanović had done. A clip from the investigator’s video the can be viewed here:

[pullquote]IN THE VIDEO: This is a good example of how a professional crime-scene videographer films. While the vehicle is stopped, he begins filming a very slow 180-degree pan. He then holds the camera steady while filming a wide shot driving along the route. To learn how to film a secure crime scene go here. [/pullquote]

When Dzuro got back from the field, he and his team watched the clips side-by-side comparing Dokmanović’s alibi video with the one filmed by Dzuro. They did not match up. In comparing the footage, the prosecution team discovered that Dokmanović’s video did not show him going from Point A to Point B, as was claimed, but rather it showed him going from Point A to Point A. Essentially, the investigator figured out that Dokmanović must have made a U-turn.

How did they determine this? The key was in the trees. At the very end of Dokmanović’s alibi tape all that can be seen on the recording are buses, part of a roof of a house and the top of a tree. The prosecutor then brought in Professor Paul Tabbush, an expert in dendrology, or in other words, a tree scientist. Interestingly, trees are just like fingerprints – no two trees have the same branch patterns. Using the pattern of branches Prof. Tabbash was able to establish that the walnut tree at the end of the investigator’s video clip did not match the tree at the end of Dokmanovic’s video. In non-legal terms this is called a “smoking gun” moment.

The Result

Screen grab from the end of Dokmanović’s alibi video.
Screen grab from the end of Dokmanović’s alibi video.

While all of this did not prove that Dokmanović was at the farm when the killing happened (which the prosecution did, indeed, still need to prove), it undermined Dokmanović’s credibility and his alibi. Once the prosecution succeeded in proving that Dokmanović lied about his alibi, the judges found it difficult, if not impossible, to trust other statements he made under oath.

Dokmanović took his own life nine days before his verdict was to be handed down. While a verdict was never issued, the family members of the men who were summarily killed that day on the farm know a piece of the truth thanks to a prosecutor, a tree scientist and a crime-scene videographer who filmed the road and the trees long-after the massacre occurred.

Take Home Points

We can learn a number of lessons from this story.

  • First, never compromise your credibility because once it’s lost, it’s very difficult (if not impossible) to get back.
  • Second, video alone did not prove Dokmanović falsified his alibi tape. Video combined with the technical analysis provided by an expert proved the lie.
  • Third, verification that a video shows what one side says it shows (or doesn’t) is vital.
  • Fourth, while filming the crime in progress is certainly valuable, filming in the aftermath of a crime can be just as critical.

About the Video as Evidence Field Guide Series:

Content in the Video as Evidence Field Guide Series is drawn from our work with input from attorneys, investigators, analysts, legal scholars, funders and our peers documenting violations on-the-ground. The Field Guide aims to improve the reliability and effectiveness of video shot for human rights documentation and for use as evidence in criminal and civil justice processes. Click here to read all posts in the series.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *