Savo Strbac – Croatia, the War, and the Future

Croatia: Luka Misetic Responds As Serb Denials Of Crimes Take New Form

August 2, 2015 by inavukic 45 Comments

Luka Misetic
Photo: Davor Puklavec/PIXSELL

Well, July was a disquieting month for justice at the UN Security Council. Serbia’s lobby with Russia had resulted in Russia’s veto on the British instigated motion to call the 1995 Srebrenica massacres genocide! And so, the verdicts delivered by the UN Security Council appointed International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) officially became as valuable and as respected as a veto of one member state of the Security Council is worth! Denials can take one far these days, it seems!

In line with the appalling Serb denials of genocide and the horrendous crimes they committed in the aggression against Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina during 1990’s it was to be expected that Croatian Serbs and their wicked supporters were going to stage some outrageous display of denials ahead of the 20th Anniversary of Operation Storm that liberated Croatia from Serb occupation and aggression in August of 1995; just as they did with the 20th commemoration of Srebrenica genocide in July.

And so, it came – the ugly beast of denials, political corruption, lies and attempts to pervert the truth in the form of launching an interactive narrative named “Storm in the Hague” (webpage)! Those responsible for this launch on Friday 31 July 2015 in Zagreb, Croatia, are the Documenta association in Croatia (an organisation supposedly dealing with confronting the truth of history but in reality twists that history to promote bias and lies against Croatia), the Serbian National Council (led by Milorad Pupovac) and, as I and multitudes see it, the ultimately biased and politically corrupt SENSE Agency – Centre for transitional justice.

The ICTY concluded the following:
1. There was no Joint Criminal Enterprise from the Croatian side.
2. Krajina Serbs were not deported from Croatia by the Croatian
authorities but left Croatia out of other reasons
not associated with any Croatian officials’
illegal behaviour;
3. Not only that the Croatian authorities did not permit crimes
against
Serbs and Serbs’ property,
but they were actively
against those crimes;
4. It’s confirmed that 20,000 houses were not burned
after Operation Storm. The number is probably closer to 5,000,
and that, in both Sectors, North and South.
5. The judgment has found that a total of 44 civilians
were killed by the Croatian forces, not 320 as the Prosecution claimed,
not 600 as HHO claimed and
especially not 2,000 as claimed by „Veritas“ i Savo Strbac.
6. There were no politics of non-investigation of crimes by the Croatian
authorities.
7. The housing laws after Operation Storm were not
in a collision with the international humanitarian law.

Many in Croatia and abroad consider (rightfully) that the interactive narrative “Storm in the Hague” is an attempt to belittle and nullify the ICTY Appeal Chamber verdict of 16 November 2012 in the case of Croatian Generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, which had found that as far as the Croatian war efforts were concerned there was no Joint Criminal Enterprise, no excessive artillery shelling and no ethnic cleansing of Serbs.

I would think that the saddest thing about this twisting of the final verdict in the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to suit the Serb denials of crimes and their aggression is that the Croatian taxpayers fund to a large extent the work of these organisations that twist the truth

Mr Luka Misetic, Ante Gotovina’s US based defense lawyer at the ICTY trial promptly addressed on his blog and in the Croatian media concerning and disquieting aspects of this launch of the interactive narrative “Storm in the Hague”. I have translated into the English language Mr Misetic’s address and here it is:

“Today (31st July), in Croatia, there was a SENSE Agency and Serbian National Council launch of the presentation “Storm in the Hague”. As it was to be expected the presentation purposefully covers up that which the Hague Tribunal found in its judgments in the case of Gotovina (Ante Gotovina, Croatian General).

HOW DID THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS?
1. Were Serbs deported from Croatia?
2. Did the Croatian authorities purposefully permit crimes such as murders, plunder and arson in order to deny the Serbs the possibility of returning to Croatia?
3. Were there more than 20,000 homes burned after Storm in the Southern part of the liberated territory?
4. Did the Croatian forces kill more than 600 Serbs during and after Operation Storm?
5. Did the Croatian judicial authorities and the police practice the politics of non-investigation of crimes?
6. Have illegally discriminatory housing laws been introduced?
7. Finally, did the Joint Criminal Enterprise exist in Croatia?

1. WERE SERBS DEPORTED FROM CROATIA?

Firstly, we need to correct some misunderstandings regarding the Trial Chamber judgment in which General Gotovina received a 24 year prison sentence. The Tribunal had concluded that Krajina Serbs were deported ONLY from 4 towns: Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and Gracac. So, only from those four places.

The Tribunal had concluded that Serb civilians from all other places in the so-called Krajina had left Croatia out of other reasons not associated with any illegal treatmen by the Croatian authorities. Those legal reasons for leaving were:
• “Serbian Republic of Krajina” officials had called upon the population to leave the areas (Trial Chamber judgment paragraph 1762);
• The fear of aggression usually associated with armed conflict (Trial Chamber judgment paragraph 1762);
• Generalised fear from the Croatian forces and disstrust in Croatian authorities (Trial Chamber judgment paragraph 1762); and
• The fact that other Serbs were leaving had caused the effect of some civilians deciding to leave with them (Trial Chamber judgment paragraph 1754, 1762).

Hence, the Hague Tribunal had even in its Trial Chamber judgment found that a huge majority of Serb population from the so-called Krajina had left Croatia out of its own reasons, and that the Croatian authorities were not responsible for that. Only the four said towns were questionable for the Trial Chamber.
2. DID THE CROATIAN AUTHORITIES PERMIT CRIMES:

The Trial Chamber had explicitly rejected the claims that the Croatian authorities had purposefully permitted crimes such as arson, plunder and killings in order to deny the Serbs the possibility of return:

2321. The Trial Chamber found that the common objective of the so-called Criminal enterprise did not amount to, or involve the commission of the crimes of persecution (disappearances of people, wanton destruction, plunder, murder, inhumane acts, cruel treatment, and unlawful detentions), destruction of property, plunder, murder, inhumane acts, and cruel treatment.

Moreover, the Court tribunal did not only find that Croatia did not permit such crimes, but it also found that the Croatian leadership had actively opposed the perpetration of such criminal acts:

2313. However, the evidence, in particular the statements made at meetings and in public reviewed in chapters 6.2.2-6.2.5, does not
indicate that members of the Croatian political and military leadership intended that property inhabited or owned by Krajina Serbs should be destroyed or plundered. Further, it does not indicate that these acts were initiated or supported by members of the leadership. Rather, the evidence includes several examples of meetings and statements (see for example D409, P470, and D1451), indicating that the leadership, including Tudjman, disapproved of the destruction of property. Based on the foregoing, the Trial Chamber does not find that destruction and plunder were within the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise.

3. Were 20,000 homes burned in the South Sector?

This claim was thoroughly discredited at the hearing. This hypothesis, which has constantly been repeated in the past 15 years, is based upon wrong claims made in the 1999 report by the HHO (Croatian Helsinki Committee) on Operation Storm in which HHO claimed that the Canadian General Alain Forand, UN forces chief commander based in Knin, stated that 22,000 houses were burned in the South Sector. The reality is that Forand stated that a total of 22,000 houses in South Sector were inspected, and not that they were burned. The truth regarding the number of burned houses in the liberated area is most likely closer to the report by the UN General Secretary in December 1995: about 5,000 of houses and stables in Sectors North and South were burned after Operation Storm.
4. Did the Croatian forces kill 600 civilians during and after Operation Storm?

This also is a usual claim perpetuated all the time in the media. However, the Prosecution had claimed that about 320 civilians were killed in Sector South, and not 600. The Trial Chamber had found that out of these 320, 44 were killed by members of the Croatian armed forces. The number of Serb civilians killed by Croatian forces is closer to 44 than 600.

5. Did the Croatian judicial authorities and police practice the politics of non-investigation of crimes?

The Court Tribunal had rejected this allegation, which is being repeated in the media all the time, even today, and, after the Appeal decision. In paragraph 2203 of its judgment the Trial Chamber found the following:

The evidence reviewed indicates that some investigatory efforts were made, but with relatively few results. Moreover, there are
indications in the evidence that at the political level, these efforts were motivated at least in part by a concern for Croatia’s international standing rather than by genuine concern for victims. In light of the testimony of expert Albiston, the Trial Chamber considers that the insufficient response by the Croatian law enforcement authorities and judiciary can to some extent be explained by the abovementioned obstacles they faced and their need to perform other duties in August and September 1995. In conclusion, while the evidence indicates incidents of purposeful hindrance of certain investigations, the Trial Chamber cannot positively establish that the Croatian authorities had a policy of non-investigation of crimes committed against Krajina Serbs during and following Operation Storm in the Indictment area.
These are the main findings of the Trial Chamber. As we all know, some parts of this judgment have remained disputable given that General Gotovina was sentenced to 24 years (and General Markac to 18) due to Trial Chamber’s conclusion that General Gotovina had executed illegal artillery attacks against the towns of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and Gracac.

That’s why we needed to wait for the final verdict by the Appeals Chamber regarding the disputed matters left from the Trial Chamber judgment, and that final judgment arrived on 16 November 2012. (Acquitting the Croatian generals of all charges).

Appeals Chamber verdict

6 and 7. Joint Criminal Enterprise and housing laws

There was no Joint Criminal Enterprise on the Croatian side. The Appeal Chamber had quashed Trial Chamber judgment on that count, concluding that the Krajina Serbs were not deported from Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and Gracac, and with that, the Croatian authorities did not deport the Krajina Serbs nor did the Joint Criminal Enterprise involving the Croatian leadership, especially Franjo Tudjman, Gojko Susak, Zvonimir Cervenko, Ante Gotovina, Jure Radic and Mladen Markac – exist.

Furthermore, after the Appeal Chamber verdict, it can be concluded that the Croatian leadership did not pass discriminatory housing laws after Operation Storm (see firstly the Government regulation and then the Temporary assumption and administration of certain property Act/Government Gazette NN 073/1995). That is, the Trial Chamber had found that those housing laws were in breach of the international law as they were introduced after the Serbs from Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and Gracac were deported from Croatia. However, given that the Appeals Chamber had quashed the finding that the Serbs were displaced, that is deported, the conclusion that housing laws passed after Operation Storm were in contravention of the international humanitarian law must also be quashed.

Croatia’s Capital Zagreb
Prepares For The 20 Anniversary
Of Operation Storm and
Liberation From Serb Occupation
Military Parade and Celebrations of Independence
to be held 4th August 2015
Photo: FAH

TO SUMMARISE

The ICTY concluded the following:

1. There was no Joint Criminal Enterprise from the Croatian side.

2. Krajina Serbs were not deported from Croatia by the Croatian authorities but left Croatia out of other reasons not associated with any Croatian officials’ illegal behaviour;

3. Not only that the Croatian authorities did not permit crimes against Serbs and Serbs’ property, but they were actively against those crimes;

4. It’s confirmed that 20,000 houses were not burned after Operation Storm. The number is probably closer to 5,000, and that, in both Sectors, North and South.

5. The judgment has found that a total of 44 civilians were killed by the Croatian forces, not 320 as the Prosecution claimed, not 600 as HHO claimed and especially not 2,000 as claimed by „Veritas“ i Savo Strbac.

6. There were no politics of non-investigation of crimes by the Croatian authorities.

7. The housing laws after Operation Storm were not in a collision with the international humanitarian law.”

Written and Translated from the Croatian language by Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb), B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Ante Gotovina, Croatia, Croatian Homeland War, Documenta, Franjo Tudjman, ICTY, International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, joint criminal enterprise, Knin, Luka Misetic, Milorad Pupovac, Mladen Markac, Operation Storm, Savo Strbac, SENSE Agency for transitional justic, Serb denial, Serbia, Serbian National Council, Veritas

Croatia: One (Two) Serbs Too Many

August 4, 2013 by inavukic 30 Comments

From left: Milorad Pupovac and Savo Strbac
Photo: braniteljski-portal.hr

Croatia’s Homeland Thanksgiving Day (Victory Day) is coming up on 5th August. It’ll be the 18th anniversary of the day the horrible war of Serb aggression ended; Military operation Storm had within a matter of days liberated the Croatian territory that was occupied by Serbs, ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs, thousands lost their lives… It’ll also be the 18th anniversary of Serb denial of their horrid aggression and crimes – their denial almost succeeded in its wicked plan to equate the aggressor with the victim had the ICTY Appeal tribunal not acquitted in November 2012 Croatian generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac (and indeed the Croatian leadership) of joint criminal enterprise against Serbs/i.e. forced deportation.

Regretfully, some loud Serbs from within and from outside Croatia still cannot face the guilt of Serb aggression. One of these is Savo Strbac – a Croatian Serb nationalist living in Serbia who even though heavily involved in the set-up and pursuit of Serb aggression in Croatia in early 1990’s “assisted” the ICTY prosecutor to formulate the failed indictment of joint criminal enterprise against Croatian generals. Even though Strbac had publicly stated many times that Serb leadership evacuated Serbs from Croatia – mind you he said that was because Croats would have committed genocide over the Serbs then had Serbs not been evacuated! – the ICTY prosecutor (Carla del Ponte) pressed on with trying to make it as if all those Serbs fled Croatia under the conditions of Croatian illegal or excessive shelling of its Serb-occupied territory (which was disproved by the court).

Here is a record of how Savo Strbac promoted Serb aggression in Croatia: He calls Croatian defence efforts an aggression; he says that Croats never wanted to live with Serbs in Croatia and YET when 94% Croatians voted to secede from communist Yugoslavia it was the 6% of Croatian Serbs (with the help of Serrb led Yugoslav Army) who rebelled and started the aggression, ethnic cleansing and murder because they wanted to live in Yugoslavia and not Croatia…

Dnevno.hr news portal reports that yesterday, 3 August, Strbac had announced in Banja Luka (!) that new evidence has come to light and that it is expected that the judgment, which acquitted Croatian generals of joint criminal enterprise in 2012, will be reviewed. Banja Luka, to remind readers, was the second largest city of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs during the 1990’s Serb aggression and untold horrid crimes were committed by the Serb forces there; and now stands as administrative capital of Serbian Republic entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (And the world tolerates this!)

Strbac said that these new facts were not known to ICTY when the acquitting verdict was delivered against the Croatian Generals regarding Operation Storm. He refers to the remains of 110 recently exhumed bodies around Sibenik and Zadar and concludes that these are the remains of Serbs killed during military operation Storm!

A renowned Croatian lawyer, Zvonimir Hodak, while commenting on Strbac’s latest outburst said that Strbac should go and seek medical treatment. Then Hodak explained some things that are clear to everyone except Strbac:

“Firstly, Sibenik and Zadar have no connection with the military actions in operation Storm, it’s known precisely over which territory the military operations were carried out. Savo Strbac could have dug out some remains near Krapina and said that these were the victims of operation Storm. Furthermore, Savo Strbac and his traitors from Croatia are saying that there were 971 civilians killed, but the Hague tribunal had identified and confirmed 44 killed civilians and that is the valid number that cannot be changed…the new evidence has nothing to do with the territory over which operation Storm occurred”.
Hodak says that this latest outburst by Savo Strbac is “shooting at sparrows with cannons and obvious disinformation of the public from which anger and despair arise”.

Another Croatian Serb Croatia could do without is Milorad Pupovac. One the Serb National Council website he states: “ … Serb national council also remembers destructive consequences of the war upon relationships between people and nations, upon social values and economy. The majority of Croatian citizens have not recovered from these in almost two decades. We condemn the continuance of political use of the war because the way it is interpreted and celebrated rejuvenates and prolongs the war atmosphere and war rhetoric, deepens the ethnic and social divides and stops the public to face itself with its dark side and its destructive consequences”.

Croatian Serb national Milorad Pupovac would like Croatia to:
•   Stop remembering its war dead
•   Stop remembering that it was attacked brutally when its 94% of voters opted to secede from communist Yugoslavia and build an independent democratic state;
•   Forget that it was the Croatian Serbs (aided by Serbia) who did not want to live in Croatia and therefore decided to steal its territory and cleanse it of non-Serbs;
•   Stop celebrating the victory of self-determination

Indeed, Strbac and Pupovac are two too many Serbs in Croatia; in the world. Their political rot is the reason why Croatia must never forget the price it paid for freedom and celebrate victory even more. No one must forget its victims in order to appease the criminal. And, one must take seriously Strbac’s words from the above video where he says that they (Serbs) needed to organise the exodus of Serbs from Croatia (in 1995) in order to preserve their people for a future that is yet to come – Greater Serbia at all costs. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Ante Gotovina, Carla Del Ponte, Croatia, Croatia Homeland war, Croatian Victory Day, Milorad Pupovac, Mladen Markac, Operation Storm, Savo Strbac, Serb aggression, Zvonimir Hodak

Professional Suicide Of A Hague Judge

June 28, 2013 by inavukic 7 Comments

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

Written by Vesna Skare-Ozbolt, published by Croatian portal Dnevno.hr 26 June 2013

(Translated into English by Ina Vukic)

Danish newspaper Berlingske June 13 published judge Frederik Harhoff’s letter, in which he expresses his suspicions that the Hague court president Theodor Meron is under the U.S.A. and Israel governments’ influence, and that he had pressured the judges to deliver judgment of acquittal in Gotovina-Markac, Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases. Judge Harhoff sent his letter to his colleagues and friends at 56 addresses and it is still not known who had leaked it to the media, reportedly without his knowledge.

Harhoff gives no evidence to support his statements but says: “Have any American or Israeli officials ever exerted pressure on the president of the tribunal, we will probably never know, or, it appears that judge Orie was also under pressure from the president of the tribunal”, etc. Dov Jacobs, professor of international law and international criminal law at the renowned Leiden university, Netherlands, says: “The letter uses typical language of conspiracy theories for which it is also typical to subtly shift the burden of proof onto others or onto those who do not believe in conspiracy. It’s a win-win situation for the ‘conspirationists’, because evidence about the existence of conspiracy can be utilised in many ways.”

After the Gotovina-Markac case judgment, and especially after the acquittal verdict in the Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases an interesting debate developed in international legal circles and opinions were divided with regards to the judgments. However, not one of the critics of these recent judgments attempted to defame judge Meron or his court politics in the media by using “a third side”. How come, then, that judge Harhoff decided to abandon the frame of a cautious and reasonable lawyer – which, judging from his biography, he undoubtedly is – and undertake this undoubtedly planned move? Why did he not firstly direct his complaint to the tribunal’s president, and after that, if the latter was unresponsive, to the founder of the Tribunal, i.e. to the UN Security Council. He did not even attempt to take this course – for, if he had he would have surely revealed it now – exactly because the goal was for the letter to come to the media. It’s not known whether anyone or who stands behind judge Harhoff for him to embark so courageously upon – what is clear by now – a professional suicide. Attorney Luka Misetic , who June 19 published on his blog an article titled “Joint criminal enterprise against judge Theodor Meron” and made interesting revelations, will possibly try to find the answer to this.

It became apparent quite quickly that one judge alone, more than politics itself, can demolish the tribunal’s credibility with his political moves with which he only put wind into the backs of all those who attempt to relativise the former and the future Hague judgments.

Hence, the family of late BiH Army general Rasim Delic has June 18 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal to have the judgment against him reviewed (Delic was convicted in 2005 to 3 years prison on command responsibility) and their reasoning or explanation is that judge Harhoff’s letter infers his inclination to convict anyone who engaged in a high position in the war and that, therefore, his judicial integrity is doubtful. That is, judge Harhoff was a member of the tribunal in Delic case and his opinion was the decisive one that rendered the convicting judgment. In their application to the Hague court the attorneys representing late Delic’s family claim that had the defence known at the time about such exclusive opinions held by judge Harhoff they would have sought his disqualification from hearing the case.

Judge Harhoff is a member of the tribunal in dr. Vojislav Seselj case and the judgment is expected in October of this year. Kevin Jon Heller, a professor at faculty of law in Melbourne, says that it’s to be expected that the lawyers representing Seselj will seek disqualification of the judge on the basis of the fact that it’s possible to conclude from judge Harhoff’s letter without a doubt that he is “inclined to convict”.

Savo Strbac, director of Veritas association, has June 13 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal for a review of the judgment of acquittal in Gotovina – Markac case, calling upon new evidence (110 exhumed bodies to end of May 2013). It is interesting that in his application for the review Savo Strbac writes: “ … exhumations of the remains of Serbs killed in the aggression of the Croatian armed forces in August 1995 have been carried out”. Time will show whether it’s true that, besides coincidence of time, there is no direct connection between his application and judge Harhoff’s letter, as Savo Strbac claims.

It’s interesting that Harhoff places the acquittals of Gotovina and Markac in the same context as the acquittal of the heads of Serb military and intelligence and attributes all three tribunal judgments to the directive politics of great powers. Also, while he can privately think whatever he wants, it is unacceptable from the professional aspect that in his letter he claims how Gotovina and Markac were acquitted of guilt “for war crimes committed by the Croatian army which deported Serb population from the area of the so-called Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) in 1995”. Judge Harhoff should know that the acquitting judgment found that it was not a matter of “deportation” (due to alleged excessive shelling) but a matter of planned evacuation in advance and in accordance with orders and through the organisation by the authorities of the so-called RSK at the time. Croatian Homeland War memorial-document centre possesses numerous documents even from Serbian sources about that, as well as about the evacuation drills carried out much before Operation Storm. I will further add – as I had personally participated in this – that the Croatian government had managed to purchase on the “black market” the authorities’ of the so-called RSK population evacuation plans, paying for them with not a small amount of money. During the liberating Operation Storm the Croatian army had done everything possible so that the evacuation routes remain free in order to ensure that any civilian casualties be brought down to the minimum. The judges of the Hague tribunal know all this very well.

This attempt at defaming judge Meron could have an impact (and) on the Herceg-Bosna Six generals case. That is, it’s not necessary to emphasise that judge Meron’s withdrawal from his position prior to an appeal decision being made in the case of the Six from Herceg-Bosna would suit, except Serbia and one EU member state. And, judging from the recent unfounded and concerning statements made by Bakir Izetbegovic about an alleged aggression against BiH by Croatia, such an outcome of this shameful story would also suit the Bosniaks.

Following all these events, I’m of the opinion that judge Harhoff cannot continue working at the Hague tribunal and professor Jacobs shares my opinion and says: “It seems that judge Harhoff does not hold much respect for presumption of innocence and that he has formed opinion in advance as to who should be pronounced guilty and who innocent. Besides that, Harhoff has in his letter explicitly apostrophised two of his colleagues (judge Meron and judge Gunaya) and so I really do not see how his continued work at the tribunal is possible.

“Despite the shortages the Hague tribunal has shown in its work to date it nevertheless represents a large civilised lunge forward. It’s become evident that, after Nuremberg, such adjudication is still possible. Although it hasn’t completely responded to its historical task the Hague tribunal has, nevertheless, brought some sort of satisfaction for the victims and their families and created a conscience that crimes are not permitted even in war.

“The International criminal justice is still in its juvenile stage. Prevention of crimes, which in itself is a goal of international war crimes tribunals, cannot occur immediately”, said judge Theodor Meron in his interview in BBC’s HardTalk program in March of this year where he, even though in advanced years of his life, lucidly and concentrated responded to the standard, direct and provocative questions put to him by the interviewer. Also, he added, ” reconciliation is not the job of the court, even though it can and it should contribute to it with its decisions, that which people seek above everything else is the criminal responsibility of the individual. Reconciliation is, after all, the job of politics.”

Vesna Skare-Ozbolt

About the writer: Vesna Škare-Ožbolt was a legal advisor of the late President Franjo Tuđman for ten years and the former Minister of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. She is also President of Democratic Centre, the party in coalition with HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union).