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.
