Now, some background.
Ante Gotovina is on trial for war crimes as the commanding officer of Operation Storm, which retook the Krajina in 1995. The Krajina is the border region between Croatia and Bosnia and, together with Slavonija (along the border between Croatia and Serbia), it made up the self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina (1991-95).
The "diaries" are artillery diaries of the Croatian army, presumably to establish the shelling of civilian targets.
I find the following stories in English: one from Radio Serbia (3 January 2009)
Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz has stated that it is not very probable that the key evidence about the Croatian "Storm" operation from 1995 have simply gone missing. He said there is reason to believe that someone is hiding intentionally the evidence against three Croatian generals - Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markac and Ivan Cermak. Brammertz has told the Zagreb VECERNJI LIST daily that the Tribunal has been asking for those documents from Croatia for the last 18 months and that it has been discussed in all meetings with the Croatian authorities. As a reminder, during the "Storm" action in August 1995, more than 250 thousand Serbs were expelled and more than 2,500 were killed or went missing.
... Croatian officials had answered most Former Yugoslavia Tribunal requests, but they had given partial responses on the case involving former General Ante Gotovina and had yet to hand over key military documents. (webnewswire.com 12/13/2008)
Allegedly the Netherlands is pressuring Croatia on these diaries by threatening to block the EU accesion negotiations over this issue. Croatia's accession was blocked in the past over the failure to produce Gotovina, who was finally arrested in Spain in December 2005. (See ET diaries on the arrest by soj - with extensive background - and IdiotSavant) Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
which is to say, he suspects the evidence exists somewhere, but he doesn't have it and is pretending he does to flush it out. Or something. keep to the Fen Causeway
Croatia resolutely rejects allegations of obstruction of cooperation with ICTY, said Croatian Ambassador to the Netherlands Frane Krnic.
"Croatia does not have any reason not to meet the documentation prosecutor's office or the Court if the competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia can find in their archives," said Krnic.
He recalled that Croatia, of 790 requests from the Prosecutor's Office had met 788 in a satisfactory way, and only 2 are only partially unresolved.
He also pointed out that since the beginning of cooperation with the Hague Tribunal Croatia submitted 19,500 different documents of more than a hundred thousand pages from the Ministry of Defence, while from the Office of the President were sent 666 transcripts.
He also said that Croatia believes that some of requested documents do not exist.
Gordan Markotić, Assistant Minister of Justice in charge of cooperation with the ICTY, said that after the reques from the Prosecutor's Office on the 10th Nov. 2006. investigators provided an insight into the archive MoI and the MoD's.
According to him, in the war circumstances, the war diaries were not properly conducted and prepared, and that it is evident from the fact that some of them were discovered in the field by UN officers.
After that, the meeting was briefly closed to the public, because the Markotić talked about some confidential information about the internal investigation carried out by the Defence Ministry and the Interior Ministry.
In the open part of the hearing, Markotić said that among the other documents, there were 14 documents that were presented to the Prosecutor's Office still in 2004 and they are asking for them again.
In the hearing, prosecutor Alan Tieger accused Croatia of systematic hiding of documents that incriminate croatian national interests.
"If the Croatian side claims that some documents do not exist, logically that they will not even look for them," commented the president judge Alphos Orie.
Tiger repeated several times that the people who obstructed the cooperation in the 90-ties are still active today, citing the period of 1996. Judge Orie proposed that he "focuses on the present."
Croatia has responded to most requests for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor. However, we continue to seek access to key documents and archives in the Gotovina case. Over the past year and a half, these specific documents have been at the centre of discussions with Croatian authorities. After several failed attempts to obtain these documents and at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor, the Trial Chamber ordered Croatia to provide a detailed report specifying the efforts undertaken to obtain the requested documents. In response to the Chamber's order, Croatia provided a report and supporting documents. Since my written report, Croatia also provided additional documents requested by my Office, thereby complying, in part, with the Tribunal's order. However, still at this date, key military documents remain unaccounted for and, in our view, further steps remain to be taken. The matter remains before the Tribunal. As the trial is in progress, it is crucial that the remaining requested key documents be made available immediately.
However, still at this date, key military documents remain unaccounted for and, in our view, further steps remain to be taken. The matter remains before the Tribunal. As the trial is in progress, it is crucial that the remaining requested key documents be made available immediately.
Ironically, that session was chaired by the Croatian Ambassador to the UN. He replied:
The President: I would now like to make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Croatia. ... For its part, Croatia remains committed, as always, to full and unequivocal cooperation with the Tribunal. Over the years, the Croatian Government has demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment by developing a close working relationship and extending its assistance to the Tribunal on a host of different issues, including by granting access to a staggering amount of sensitive documentation emanating from the highest military and police authorities. It is in our shared interest to continue cooperating in good faith and in a responsible and professional manner. I would like to stress that, in Gotovina's case alone, the Croatian Government has delivered close to 2,000 specific and sensitive police and military documents, as requested by the Office of the Prosecutor. This clearly indicates that extensive and intense cooperation does exist and will continue in the future, because the search for additional documents is still ongoing. Croatia is determined to do all in its power to meet the Prosecutor's remaining request. This is the message that has been unequivocally conveyed to the Prosecutor from the highest State authorities, and to that end the Government has, over the reporting period, undertaken a number of operational measures -- administrative, as well as investigative and judicial steps -- against certain individuals. Croatia continues to conduct administrative and criminal investigations with the aim of determining whether those documents exist and if they were unlawfully taken and, if so, of identifying the persons responsible and bringing them to justice. We note that the Prosecutor has taken into account the additional steps that Croatia has taken since the submission of his written report.
...
For its part, Croatia remains committed, as always, to full and unequivocal cooperation with the Tribunal. Over the years, the Croatian Government has demonstrated the seriousness of its commitment by developing a close working relationship and extending its assistance to the Tribunal on a host of different issues, including by granting access to a staggering amount of sensitive documentation emanating from the highest military and police authorities. It is in our shared interest to continue cooperating in good faith and in a responsible and professional manner.
I would like to stress that, in Gotovina's case alone, the Croatian Government has delivered close to 2,000 specific and sensitive police and military documents, as requested by the Office of the Prosecutor. This clearly indicates that extensive and intense cooperation does exist and will continue in the future, because the search for additional documents is still ongoing.
Croatia is determined to do all in its power to meet the Prosecutor's remaining request. This is the message that has been unequivocally conveyed to the Prosecutor from the highest State authorities, and to that end the Government has, over the reporting period, undertaken a number of operational measures -- administrative, as well as investigative and judicial steps -- against certain individuals. Croatia continues to conduct administrative and criminal investigations with the aim of determining whether those documents exist and if they were unlawfully taken and, if so, of identifying the persons responsible and bringing them to justice. We note that the Prosecutor has taken into account the additional steps that Croatia has taken since the submission of his written report.
The Krajina is the border region between Croatia and Bosnia and, together with Slavonija (along the border between Croatia and Serbia), it made up the self-proclaimed Serb Republic of Krajina (1991-95).
Nitpicks:
The defence lawyer appears to want to drum up patriotic support for Gotovina at home, not that that will do him any good anyway since Gotovina is already under arrest in The Hague... words like that might have had a "useful" effect when Croatia was being asked to surrender Gotovina in 2005.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to lend some credence to the claim that the ICTY's prosecutors maybe haven't been able to assemble a watertight case against Gotovina and are desperate. Milosevic gave Del Ponte a run for her money during the trial, and he was running his own defence.
As for "his words were interpreted as saying that he'll prove that the Croats are a genocidal nation", I can't search the Croatian online press for the original interview text or a sample of the reactions. Maybe that is an accurate description of the Croatian press commentary going ballistic over the interview. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
I can't search the Croatian online press for the original interview text or a sample of the reactions.
Here is Brammertz's interview with Vecernji list, and here is the defence lawier's reaction. Google Translate is your friend.
The interview is long, and most of it is in general terms (not specifically about Croatia). Here is the part on Gotovina (with my admittedly amateurish attempts to improve upon Google Translate):
That's it.
Brammertz comes closest to suggest something wrong with Croatia in general when he speaks about helping the "Croatian public" to "better understand what happened in 1995" -- implying that the Gotovina-supporting 90% has the wrong idea of what happened. (My cynical self contends that a not insignificant part of that 90% did know very well what happened, but condoned it.) Indeed the lawyer's sputtering response was triggered by this passage only -- and there I find all that was referenced to you, with all the bombast and attempt to drum up patriotic support:
Now his take on the evidence:
Something asked for for 18 months doesn't appear to be all that "new evidence".
Gotovina's lawyer's reaction is completely justified. The headline of Brammertz's interview is "SOMEONE HAS CONCEALED KEY EVIDENCE AGAINST GOTOVINA." In the interview, Brammertz himself states in the interview: "It seems to us unlikely that key documents that pertain to a major military operation might simply disappear. We have reason to believe that some people hid documents deliberately." One can completely understand the reaction of Gotovina's lawyer to this type of allegation by a prosecutor. It implies that the accused is guilty but that there is a cover-up preventing the prosecution from proving it. Gotovina's lawyer was completely right to attack Brammertz for making this type of assertion.
Furthermore, Gotovina's lawyer's response was hardly "sputtering" or an attempt to "drum up patriotic support." It is an attempt to defend his client's public reputation. Remember, it was Brammertz who first went public with the allegation that "someone is hiding evidence against Gotovina." The whole purpose of a trial is to either prove that the accused is a war criminal, or else to acquit the accused and give him his reputation back. Brammertz wants to have it both ways: he will try to convict him, but if he cannot convict him then he will try to make sure that he does not get his reputation back (i.e. he was guilty but the evidence of his guilt was concealed from us).
There is a passage of Gotovina's lawyer's response which you failed to translate and which is completely on point:
Misetic states: "We have it on videotape. Carla Del Ponte in front of the Security Council giving a report three months before the start of trial in the Gotovina case, saying, 'We have all the evidence necessary to convict Gotovina.' So let me pose the question: What changed from the time when the Prosecution before trial was claiming that it had 'all the necessary evidence', to now during the trial Mr. Brammertz putting out stories about how 'critical evidence' against Gotovina is being withheld? The Prosecution is playing a game in order to prepare the foundation for Gotovina's eventual acquittal. When that time comes, they will say 'of course he was guilty, but you see we couldn't prove it because 'critical evidence' was withheld from us.' But with this story the Prosecution is desperately avoiding the fundamental question: what was the Prosecution's evidentiary basis for indicting him in the first place?"
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/080408ED.htm
There is a tape introduced with the witness 6 of the prosecution that shows 'Knin bombarded all over'. The defensor asked for the original copy of the prosecution where, instead of the sirens and bombarding you can hear birds singing. And later he has shown that instead of the town bombarded in many places, the serbian colonel that provided the proof recorded the image putting himself in the center of the smoke of the Tvik factory (which was producing weapons) recording towards outside so it appeared that everything around is covered with smoke.
There were various proofs of this kind during the trial, the school that was hit because it was closed with army troops inside, one projectile beside the hospital, beside which lied the weapon the serbian side was shooting from. I believe all of these things can be found in different transcripts from the trial. So, if the prosecution does not find strong evidence in photographic material that would show that the civil points were deliberately aimed, the written affirmation from Gotovina's soldiers that they did it, would be a nice solution for the prosecutor. Besides, why would someone prefer artillery diaries to photographic evidence that is taken a lot during the war?
There are these kind of proofs that particular houses were being destroyed, not by artillery but by perticulars (war vultures going around those houses committing robbery, burning the houses or killing) but they can not prove that Gotovina had the control of them.
That or, more to the point, the shameful spectacle of the Saddam trial. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
In this case "new" means "in addition to that used in the indictment", clearly. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Which leads to the question: how does Brammertz know this evidence is "crucial against Gotovina," if no one has ever seen it and no one knows if it ever existed?
Brammertz is just creating excuses here.
This is not to imply that what you say isn't true, but do you have a link to document that ruling of the Tribunal? Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/tord/en/080916.pdf
The Trial Chamber issued an order to Croatia to intensify its search. Within the Order, the Chamber noted at paragraph 13 that, "Based on the submissions of the Prosecution and Croatia, the Chamber is not in a position to draw any conclusion as to whether the requested documents do exist. In particular, the Chamber considers that the aforementioned general statements of Croatia in the report dated 14 July 2008 are not sufficient, without further facts or documents to substantiate them, to establish that they do not exist."
Accordingly, there is no proof one way or the other whether such documents exist. Croatia has not proven that the documents don't exist, but Brammertz hasn't convinced the Court that they do exist, either. Accordingly, it is reckless of Brammertz (or else intentionally misleading) to suggest that people are "hiding incriminating evidence against Gotovina" when Brammertz cannnot even prove to the Court that the documents exist in the first place.
