Prlic Defence Lambasts Prosecutor
Lawyer for former Bosnian Croat leader condemns attitude towards Croatian defence witnesses.
Prlic Defence Lambasts Prosecutor
Lawyer for former Bosnian Croat leader condemns attitude towards Croatian defence witnesses.
The defence of former Herceg Bosna leader Jadranko Prlic this week presented its closing arguments, criticising the prosecutor’s “disturbing” presentation of evidence as well as his description of Croatian defence witnesses.
Prlic, the former president and prime minister of Herceg Bosna, the self-declared Croat statelet in Bosnia, is on trial along with five other high-ranking Bosnian Croat officials: Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, Slobodan Praljak, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic.
The six are accused of responsibility for the expulsion, rape, torture and murder of Bosniaks and other non-Croats between late 1991 and early 1994, as part of an alleged plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Bosnia in order to later join them to a so-called Greater Croatia.
Prlic’s defence counsel Michael Karnavas said that the “prosecutor apparently did everything in his power to show its aversion toward any evidence which would be in the way of his theories”.
“The way in which the prosecution has presented evidence in its final exposé is, to say the least, disturbing. Unfortunately, the prosecutor has forgotten his role in seeking justice, not just punishment,” Karnavas continued.
Presenting his final argument, Prlic’s lawyer said that the closing words of the prosecution were full of “inappropriate and disturbing topics” which were “painful” to listen to, and that the prosecutor had tried “to equate between being Croat and being nationalist, Ustasha (Croat WWII pro-Nazi militia) and Nazi - at least that's what it sounded in our ears”.
Prosecutor Kenneth Smith, who last week asked for Prlic to be sentenced to 40 years in prison, had claimed that the witnesses for the defence were “mostly Croats who had closely cooperated with the accused during the time relevant for the indictment” and since they were “in a certain way connected to the joint criminal enterprise,” their testimony could not be trusted.
“I wish to direct the chamber's attention to the prosecutor’s words where he said that ‘defence witnesses should be given little or no consideration since they are Croats’,” Karnavas said this week.
“Imagine me coming in into this chamber and saying: ‘Don't trust the Muslim witnesses! They’re not trustworthy because they will definitely be on the Muslim side’… That would be a shameful thing. Witnesses should not be judged by their religion, profession or occupation,” he continued, adding that the prosecution had implied that “foreign witnesses” were to be trusted more than Bosnian Croats who had appeared for the defence.
Karnavas pointed out that Prlic’s witnesses were mostly senior-level officials, such as ministers and ambassadors, and that they were competent and eminent enough to testify “about how Herceg Bosna functioned”.
“The witnesses who gave their testimonies for Mr Prlic are not insignificant people,” Karnavas said. “They all held key positions, including a former prime minister, a former finance minister for Bosnia Hercegovina, a former interior minister from Croatia. But is that what makes them less trustworthy than [former US ambassador to Croatia] Peter Galbraith, who has admitted that the USA was breaking the weapons embargo during the war, and that he assisted it?
“In fact, all witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. The prosecution despises them as nationalists who would do all it takes to re-establish the Croatian Banovina from 1939 (a province of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between 1939 and 1943, which included much of present-day Croatia along with portions of Bosnia and Serbia).
“We simply wish you to treat all witnesses equally, with the same level of consideration, to look into the acts, since that's where the facts are.”
Later, Karnavas alleged that “let us not forget that most foreigners, who appeared here as witnesses, came with prejudice”.
“As soon as they came to Zagreb, they were given a map and told ‘look, this is a self-proclaimed state carrying out ethnic cleansing’. They later kept repeating it as a mantra, first in their reports, and then later here in court,” he continued, adding that Prlic had been, as president, just one member of what he called a “temporary organ of government”.
“Dr Prlic is standing by every single decision or act he signed on behalf of the temporary executive authorities of Herceg Bosna, as its president,” Karnavas said, adding that the prosecution had failed to present evidence which would demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt Prlic’s guilt in the joint criminal enterprise.
The defence will continue with its closing arguments next week.
Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained journalist in Sarajevo.
