Thursday, July 21, 2016

ICTY reverses findings on Tudjman, Šušak participation in joint criminal enterprise in Herceg Bosna

On July 19th, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY in the Prlic case rejected an application by the Republic of Croatia to appear as amicus curiae (friend of the court). Croatia had applied for amicus curiae status in order to defend the rights of President Franjo Tudjman, Defense Minister Gojko Šušak, and Croatian Army Chief of Staff Janko Bobetko, contending that these Croatian officials were wrongfully found by the Prlic Trial Chamber to be members of a Joint Criminal Enterprise to expel Bosnian Muslims from Croatian controlled parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina (known as Herceg-Bosna).  Croatia further argued that it was wrong for the Prlic Trial Chamber to reach these conclusions about Tudjman, Šušak and Bobetko not only because there was no evidence to substantiate such conclusions, but also because the Trial Chamber violated the European Convention on Human Rights by naming three deceased individuals as members of a Joint Criminal Enterprise, without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. Croatia asked that it be given amicus status so that it could challenge the Trial Chamber’s findings on behalf of Tudjman, Šušak and Bobetko.

When the Prlic Trial Chamber judgment was delivered on 29 May 2013, the ICTY publicized the Trial Chamber’s conclusions that Tudjman, Šušak and Bobetko had all been found to have been members of a JCE.  This excerpt is from the Tribunal’s own press release about the Prlic judgment (found here):

The JCE existed approximately from January 1993 to April 1994. Its criminal objective was to be reached through the commission of crimes by HVO forces in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the non-Croat population. The Chamber concluded that “[i]n the majority of cases, the crimes committed were not the random acts of a few unruly soldiers. On the contrary, these crimes were the result of a plan drawn up by members of the JCE whose goal was to permanently remove the Muslim population from Herceg-Bosna.”

Apart from the six accused, a number of persons joined, participated in and contributed to the JCE, including among others: Franjo Tuđman, the President of the Republic of Croatia; Gojko Šušak, the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Croatia; Janko Bobetko, a general in the Army of the Republic of Croatia; and Mate Boban, President of the Croatian Community (later Republic) of Herceg-Bosna.

As reported by the New York Times that day, the lead prosecutor in the Prlic case, Kenneth Scott, placed greater emphasis on his “conviction” of Tudjman and Šušak than he did on the conviction of the six accused who were parties to the case (found here):

The court’s judgment was more than 2,600 pages. A summary that was read aloud in court did not provide many details, but it said the president of Croatia at the time, Franjo Tudjman, and his defense minister, Gojko Šušak, were part of a “joint criminal enterprise” that led to the persecution, abuse, rape and killing of Muslims and ethnic Serbs in eight Bosnian provinces in 1992 and 1993. Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Šušak have since died. […]

One of the lead prosecutors, Kenneth Scott, said he was pleased with the verdict. “All six men were convicted of very serious crimes, and the judgment clearly established the role of Tudjman and other senior Croats,” Mr. Scott said. “This is the part of the Bosnian war that was least known internationally.”

Prosecutor Scott told the Associated Press that same day [found here]:

“This is the first time the court has been very clear and adamant about the significant role played by Tudjman and Šušak," prosecutor Kenneth Scott said. "There's no question in my view that's one of the most historical, remarkable things about the case."

Croatia’s amicus application was intended to challenge these core findings.  But amicus requests are very rarely granted at the ICTY.  In the 23 years of the Tribunal’s existence, it is likely that less than ten have been granted.  It was therefore no surprise that the Appeals Chamber rejected Croatia’s application.

What was surprising, however, was that in explaining why it was rejecting Croatia’s amicus application, the Appeals Chamber essentially granted everything that Croatia wanted.  Specifically, the Appeals Chamber found that, “[t]he Trial Chamber made no explicit findings concerning [Tudjman's, Šušak's and Bobetko's] participation in the JCE and did not find them guilty of any crimes". [See paragraph 9, here].   This conclusion by the Appeals Chamber is remarkable in light of the ICTY’s own earlier press release on 29 May 2013 (quoted above) which reported that the Trial Chamber conclusion was that “[a]part from the six accused, a number of persons joined, participated in and contributed to the JCE, including among others: Franjo Tuđman, the President of the Republic of Croatia; Gojko Šušak, the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Croatia; Janko Bobetko, a general in the Army of the Republic of Croatia.”

The Appeals Chamber has essentially reversed the findings of the Prlic Trial Chamber about Tudjman, Šušak and Bobetko’s alleged participation in a JCE.  In a unique procedural maneuver, it did so in the context of a decision to reject an amicus curiae application. Scholars and practitioners of international criminal procedure should take note.

The Appeals Chamber went on to emphasize that “the presumption of innocence of the three Croatian officials is not impacted” by the Prlic Trial Chamber judgment, and furthermore “"the Appeals Chamber emphasizes that the findings in the Trial Judgment regarding the Three Croatian Officials in no way constitute findings of responsibility on the part of the state of Croatia."

The ICTY Appeals Chamber has thus ruled that President Tudjman, Minister Šušak and General Bobetko were not found to be members of a JCE in Bosnia and remain presumed innocent by the ICTY.  Prosecutor Ken Scott stated publicly that the Trial Chamber in Prlic was "very clear and adamant about the significant role played by Tudjman and Šušak" and that these findings were "one of the most historical, remarkable things about the case."  Those findings are now reversed.


Croatia could not have hoped for a better result from the Appeals Chamber even if the Appeals Chamber had granted Croatia amicus status.  


Thursday, July 7, 2016

Aleksandar Vučić will soon acknowledge Srebrenica genocide. Or else.

The twenty-first anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide  is approaching.  Numerous judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) have confirmed that the execution of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men by Bosnian Serb forces was genocide.  Yet every year tensions rise between Bosnia and Serbia due to Serbia’s refusal to acknowledge that the heinous crime committed at Srebrenica amounted to genocide.  This year is no different.  The mayor of Srebrenica, Camil Durakovic, announced recently that Serbian officials were no longer welcome at events commemorating Srebrenica due to Serbia’s genocide denial.

Serbia’s policy of denial may come to an end in the next few years, however, due to pressure from the European Union.  Serbia’s government has set its sights on full EU membership and has been pushing hard to open so-called “Chapter 23”and “Chapter 24”  negotiations on the Judiciary, Rule of Law and Human Rights.  In order to achieve full EU membership, Serbia will have to satisfy all of the conditions and benchmarks that the EU has set out in Chapters 23 and 24.  Little public attention has been paid thus far to a condition that Croatia was able to insert into the EU’s conditions that Serbia must fulfill in order to complete its obligations under Chapter 23:

The EU delegation will recall that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) remains essential. While awaiting the spring report of the ICTY, the EU delegation will stress its expectations that Serbia will continue its recent record of cooperation with the ICTY and with war crimes prosecution offices in the region. It will urge Serbia to fully and unequivocally accept the ICTY's rulings. It will also call on Serbia to step up its efforts in domestic handling of war crimes in line with international humanitarian law and the jurisprudence of ICTY and to significantly improve its witness protection system. It will call for full political support and commitment to cooperation with war crimes prosecution offices in the region.

The condition that Serbia must “fully and unequivocally accept the ICTY’s rulings” is crucial.  It means that if Serbia wants to become a member of the EU, it can no longer continue to deny what the ICTY has established in multiple judgments:  genocide was committed at Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces.  Croatia and other EU member states will insist that Serbian officials acknowledge the genocide before Serbia will be allowed to close Chapter 23. 

Accordingly, one day in the not-too-distant future, we should expect to see Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić publicly acknowledge that genocide was committed at Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces.  If not, Serbia will remain outside of the EU as a result of its preference for genocide denial over EU membership.

Update:  On 14 July, Vucic announced that Serbia and the Republika Srpska will jointly commemorate the "deportation" of the Serbs from Croatia in Operation Storm.  For the same reasons as I explain above, he won't be doing this for long. The ICTY's judgment in the Gotovina case is final:  Croatian Serbs were not "deported" by the government of Croatia in Operation Storm.  Vucic will have to acknowledge this if Serbia wants to complete Chapter 23 and eventually join the EU.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Despite Aquittal, the Tribunal Can Order Šešelj’s Continued Detention. Here's How.




The acquittal of Serbian warloard Vojislav Šešelj has caused outrage in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and around the world.  There is little doubt about Šešelj’s role in Joint Criminal Enterprise to create Greater Serbia by means of displacement of the non-Serb civilian population.  This was already confirmed by the Trial Chamber in the Martić Judgment, which at paragraph 446 found: “The Trial Chamber therefore finds that at least Blagoje Adžić, Milan Babić, Radmilo Bogdanović,Veljko Kadijević, Radovan Karadžić, Slobodan Milošević, Ratko Mladić, Vojislav Šešelj, Franko “Frenki” Simatović, Jovica Stanišić, and Captain Dragan Vasiljković participated in the furtherance of the above-mentioned common criminal purpose.”  Can the Appeals Chamber do anything to remedy the gross injustice that was perpetrated by Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti’s majority Trial Chamber yesterday?

Fortunately, the answer to that question is “yes”.  Judge Antonetti’s Trial Chamber made numerous, egregious errors in reaching its decision to acquit Šešelj, including:

1.     Finding that a JCE to create “Greater Serbia” did not exist.  This finding goes against prior precedent of the ICTY, namely in the Martić case, where the Trial Chamber found the existence of a “Greater Serbia” JCE, and the Appeals Chamber affirmed it.  As recently as last week, the Trial Chamber in the Karadžić case concluded  that “The Accused [Karadžić],Momčilo Krajišnik, Nikola Koljević, Biljana Plavšić, Ratko Mladić, Mićo Stanišić, Momčilo Mandić, Željko Raţnatović (Arkan), and Vojislav Šešelj formed a plurality of persons who acted pursuant to this common plan and shared the intent for the crimes which formed part of the plan.” 

2.     Finding that civilians in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were not subject to a “widespread and systematic attack”.  This conclusion is contrary to the conclusions of many prior Chambers of the ICTY, including Martić, Karadžić.  The Trial Chamber in the Mrkšić case concluded:

472. It is in this setting that the Chamber finds that, at the time relevant to the Indictment, there was in fact, not only a military operation against the Croat forces in and around Vukovar, but also a widespread and systematic attack by the JNA and other Serb forces directed against the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population in the wider Vukovar area. The extensive damage to civilian property and civilian infrastructure, the number of civilians killed or wounded during the military operations and the high number of civilians displaced or forced to flee clearly indicate that the attack was carried out in an indiscriminate way, contrary to international law.
It was an unlawful attack. Indeed it was also directed in part deliberately against the civilian population.” (Mrkšić Trial Judgment, paras. 470 and 472; references omitted.)

3.     The International Court of Justice, in the genocide case of Croatia v. Serbia,  found the existence of a widespread attack:

416. The findings of the Court and those of the ICTY are mutually consistent, and establish the existence of a pattern of conduct that consisted, from August 1991, in widespread attacks by the JNA and Serb forces on localities with Croat populations in various regions of Croatia, according to a generally similar modus operandi.

Notable is the ICJ’s statement at paragraph 412 that “Serbia does not contest the systematic and widespread nature of certain attacks.” Judge Antonetti thus denies the existence of a widespread and systematic attack despite the fact that Serbia itself did not deny it when Serbia was brought before the International Court of Justice.


For these reasons and more, I expect the Appeals Chamber of the Residual Mechanism to overturn the Šešelj Trial Judgment on the basis of the Prosecution’s appeal.  But an appeal is likely to take at least three years to complete, and Šešelj is allegedly ill with cancer and may not survive that long.  If Šešelj were to die before the Appeals Chamber pronounces judgment, the Trial Chamber Judgment becomes a final judgment, and the historical record is tainted forever.

So what can the Appeals Chamber do to undo the damage that was done by the Trial Chamber’s unjust acquittal of Šešelj?  Once the Prosecution files its Notice of Appeal, the Appeals Chamber may order Šešelj’s immediate re-arrest and return to the Detention Unit of the ICTY.

Rule 123 of the MICT Rules of Procedure and Evidence states:

****

Rule 123
Status of Acquitted Person
(A) Subject to paragraph (B), in the case of an acquittal or the upholding of a
challenge to jurisdiction, the accused shall be released immediately.

(B) If, at the time the judgement is pronounced, the Prosecutor advises the Trial
Chamber in open court of the Prosecutor’s intention to file notice of appeal
pursuant to Rule 133, the Trial Chamber may, on application by the Prosecutor
and upon hearing the Parties, in its discretion, issue an order for the continued detention of the accused, pending the determination of the appeal.
****

Rule 131 provides that Rule 123 applies mutatis mutandis to proceedings before the Appeals Chamber.  Accordingly, Rule 123 allows the Appeals Chamber to order Šešelj’s immediate return to the ICTY and his continued detention, despite his status as an acquitted person.


Let’s hope the Appeals Chamber acts, sooner rather than later.  The gross errors committed by the Antonetti Majority, combined with the widespread outrage throughout the world that the acquittal has caused, demand swift action on the part of the Appeals Chamber.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Andrew Leslie: Is Canada's Serial Exaggerator The Best Man for Minister of Defence?



The Liberal Party win in Canada will result in a new Canadian government, to be formed by incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  Speculation is that Trudeau will name former Canadian General Andrew Leslie as his new Defence Minister.  This is the same Andrew Leslie who dishonored himself by misleading war crimes investigators in The Hague about what he witnessed in the town of Knin in Croatia in 1995 while he was a UN Peacekeeper there.  Leslie also misled the Canadian public about what he witnessed, telling the CBC in 2003 that Croatian Army artillery shelling in Knin in August 1995 had resulted in “between 10 and 25 thousand civilians dead.”  The war crimes tribunal ultimately could not identify a single civilian killed in the artillery fire.  Leslie was grossly exaggerating on CBC in order to paint himself as a brave soldier, following in the footsteps of his famous father and grandfather in the Canadian military.  Is this guy really the best that the Liberal Party can put forward for Minister of Defence?

Leslie’s exaggeration of the nature of the artillery fire in Knin was no accident. That exaggeration was intended to make Leslie appear courageous while out in the line of fire.  Indeed, Leslie schemed with his fellow Canadian officers in the Fall of 1995 to receive a Meritorious Service Medal from the Canadian Army, by creating a false story that Leslie had personally gone out into the town of Knin on 3 occasions and, while under intense Croatian Army artillery fire, saved the lives of 40 United Nations employees who were allegedly trapped in the town, by bringing them to safety inside of the United Nations camp in the town.

This story was a complete falsehood, but this report was written up by Leslie’s Canadian subordinates inside the United Nations compound and sent to Ottawa so that Leslie could be awarded a medal for his service in Croatia.  I know this to be the case. 

In May 2007, I travelled to Ottawa to interview Canadian Army Lt. Col. Shawn Tymchuk, who in 1995 was then-Colonel Leslie’s assistant in Knin, Croatia (and also the Senior Liaison Officer for the United Nations Force in Knin).  Lt. Col Tymchuk told me that he was personally responsible for drafting all of the recommendations for Canadian medals that ultimately were sent to Ottawa for review. 

I asked Tymchuck whether, as Leslie's assistant, he would have been aware of Leslie's whereabouts on 4 August 1995 in Knin, Croatia.  He answered, "Yes."   I then asked why he had written a recommendation for Col. Leslie to receive a medal. He responded that Col. Leslie had gone out into the town of Knin on three occasions on 4 August 1995, and while under heavy artillery fire had rescued UN personnel trapped in the town.

I then followed up with another question:  “How exactly do you know that Col. Leslie did that?”

His answer stunned me:  “I did not witness Col. Leslie going out into the town.  However, several weeks later, when I was writing up recommendations for medals, I was given a direct instruction from my superior (Canadian) General Alain Forand, to write it that way.  I had no reason to doubt General Forand’s version of events, even though I had not witnessed Col. Leslie going out into the town on 4 August.”

While under cross-examination in 2008 by our Defense team in the trial of Ante Gotovina before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Leslie admitted that he had never gone out into the town of Knin on the day in question, except for a very short trip where he never got out of the vehicle and never rescued anyone. He also admitted that he hadn't rescued anyone:

Transcript page 1958:
9 Q. General Leslie, did you travel outside the Sector South
10 headquarters compound on the 4th?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And can you tell the Court on how many occasions and what the
13 nature of that travel was?
14 A. A couple times mounted; a couple of times dismounted. The
15 mounted were sometime shortly after 6.00 for a very short duration where,
16 in the controlled chaos, that was the front gate. There were some issues
17 with UN CIVPOL who were not necessarily on the same recall list as the
18 Sector South United Nations civil staff, and there was a demand for
19 someone who knew where a street was close to the train yard. So I hopped
20 aboard that vehicle, the duration of the trip was about 15 minutes,
21 nothing significant to report. Picked up three people, none of them UN
22 CIVPOL, and came back.
23 The second trip was at some point during the day. There was some
24 bodies outside to the right, and some people were interested in
25 investigating them and putting them in bags. So I just went outside to
Page 1959
1 put a stop to that.
2 Then that evening, I went to the Serbian army liaison detachment
3 to discuss some issues. To the best of my recollection, those were my
4 sojourns outside of Sector South compound on the 4th.

Leslie, by his own sworn testimony, never went out into the town to rescue the lives of 40 United Nations personnel.

Nevertheless, Tymchuk – on Forand’s instructions – wrote up a fictional account to his superiors in Ottawa which resulted in Leslie receiving a Meritorious Service Medal from the Canadian Army for something he had not done:

December 20, 1996
Colonel Andrew Brooke Leslie, M.S.M., C.D.
Meritorious Service Medal (military division)

In 1995, Colonel Leslie provided outstanding leadership as Chief of Staff, Sector South Headquarters in Croatia. His professionalism and remarkable courage were clearly demonstrated between August 4 and 6, during Operation Storm -- the Croatian offensive in the Krajina district. During intense artillery fire, Colonel Leslie organized and participated in several missions to rescue approximately 40 United Nations employees trapped in their residences and bring them to the United Nations camp, using armoured personnel carriers. Throughout the worst of the shelling, he moved from bunker to bunker offering encouragement to those in distress and was instrumental in convincing them to continue doing their job. His performance during the operation and its aftermath saved many lives and brought great credit to the Canadian Forces.

Under cross-examination in The Hague, Leslie admitted that the justification for why he was receiving the Meritorious Service Medal was a lie.  Canada’s CTV covered Leslie’s trial testimony and his difficulty explaining his Meritorious Service Medal:




While under cross-examination, Leslie attempted to justify the Medal by saying that he had approached the “vice chief of Defence staff and said, ‘I think you got it wrong. I think you're talking about 30 to 40 civilians from the hospital being moved to the UN compound.’ And after a bit of discussion he told me, ‘That's good enough. It's going to stay because you're going it for that, you're getting it for being the Chief of Staff duties.’ “[1]

The Vice-Chief of Defense Staff in 1996 when Leslie was awarded the medal was Vice Admiral Larry E. Murray, CM CMM CD.  It would be wonderful to see if Vice Admiral Murray would confirm Leslie's claims.  I doubt it.  Leslie himself was the source of false claims that he had travelled through Knin under shellfire.  As evidenced by the trial transcript in the Gotovina case,  Leslie had told war crimes investigators in 1997 that he had travelled through Knin on three occasions on 4 August 1995 and had personally witnessed intense shellfire. At trial under cross-examination, he admitted that this 1997 testimony to war crimes investigators was not true:

(Transcript page 2002)

5 Q. General, you did say in 1997 that you personally witnessed these
6 on three occasions during trips through Knin during the shell fire;
7 didn't you say that?
8 A. Sir, I did. However, as I pointed out in my previous testimony,
9 only rarely did I see a point of detonation. The vast majority of shells
10 which I witnessed were either through oral or the smoke and glass of dust
11 cloud.
12 Q. Now, did you also explain to the Office of the Prosecutor when
13 you gave that statement that, in fact, you never took three trips through
14 Knin during the shell fire.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Stop.
16 You may answer the question.
17 THE WITNESS: Sir, I'd have to refer to that, but may I say that
18 the testimony I gave in 1995 was taken away and sent back to me. There
19 are some variances and inaccuracies in that testimony, which I'm more
20 than willing to admit to, and certain nuancing and wording that I did not
21 pay enough attention to when I actually signed it two years later.
22 I believe I was thinking at the time that one of those trips,
23 especially the one on the evening of the 4th, that there was almost no
24 shell fire and certainly not along the route.


Accordingly, Leslie was personally involved in spreading the myth that he had gone out into the town under heavy artillery fire.  It was a lie, a lie that he must have known had been told to Lt. Col. Tymchuk so that Tymchuk could write it up and send it to Ottawa for Leslie to be medalled.

Finally, recall what I said at the outset:  Leslie told a CBC audience in 2003 that the Croatian artillery fire had caused an estimated “10 to 25,000 civilians dead” in Knin.  (Transcript of Leslie’s 2003 CBC interview is available here, see page 2)

Yet in his sworn testimony in The Hague, Leslie claimed that he only saw between 30 and 60 dead bodies in total:

Transcript page 1968.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, could we ask the witness "large
9 quantities of dead, men, women, and children, stacked in the
10 hospital ..." What do I have to understand approximately by large
11 quantities? Where you are saying "30 to 40 patients, 25 in absolutely
12 critical condition," what about the dead bodies.
13 THE WITNESS: Sir, it's very difficult to estimate. I would say
14 the number was no lower than 30 and probably no higher than 50 or 60.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the tens of?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

However, even Leslie's claim of seeing 30 to 60 bodies proved to be untrue.  Ultimately, the Tribunal could not identify a single victim of Croatian artillery fire. (See Gotovina Trial Judgment, at paragraphs 1360-1364, found here).

In short, Andrew Leslie is a man who has difficulty telling the truth.  He is a serial exaggerator who was given a medal by the Canadian Army under false pretenses. 

Is Andrew Leslie, Canada's serial exaggerator, really Canada's best man for Minister of Defence?






[1] Trial Transcript, page 2117, found here: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/080423IT.htm

Monday, August 10, 2015

Ispravak netočnih navoda: Što sam zapravo predložio u Jutarnjem listu

U Jutarnjem Listu od dana 10.8.2015 godine objavljen je tekst novinarke Suzana Barilar u kojem stoji da sam na stranicama Jutarnjeg Lista navodno "iznio prijedlog da se 28. rujna obilježava kao dan sjećanja na žrtve zločina počinjenih nakon te vojno-redarstvene akcije."  Medjutim, takav prijedlog ne postoji u mom tekstu objavljenom 4.8.2015 godine.  Tamo sam napisao sljedece:

"Što da su se, kao rezultat tih gesti, predsjednica Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović i premijer Zoran Milanović pojavili zajedno na komemoraciji održanoj 28. rujna u spomen svih onih besmisleno ubijenih ljudi u Varivodama i drugim mjestima nakon Operacije Oluja da bi prenijeli svoje iskreno žaljenje cijelog hrvatskog naroda zbog ubojstva tih nevinih žrtava? [...]

Nadajmo se da će jednoga dana Vučić i Pupovac uvidjeti da je održavanje „dana žalosti“ na dan oslobođenja Hrvatske jednako provokativno kao da Hrvatska održi „dan žalosti“ za žrtve Križnog puta 8. svibnja, na Dan pobjede u Europi. Treba nam manje provokacija, i više državničkih mjera. Poput priznavanja genocida u Srebrenici, ili zločinačke prirode Republike Srpske Krajine. Također nam treba da hrvatski vrh prizna bol koju Srbi osjećaju zbog zločina počinjenih nakon Operacije Oluja. Možda bi 28. rujna, obljetnica ubojstava u Varivodama, bio primjeren dan za to."


Dakle, pisao sam o mogucnosti da Vučić priznaje genocid u Srebrenici, Pupovac priznaje zlocinacki karakter Republike Srpske Krajine, te da  hrvatski drzavni vrh ode u Varivodama i izrazi zaljenje hrvatskog naroda zbog ubojstava nevinih zrtava. (Nesto slicno je rekao Kardinal Bozanic u svojoj propovjedi u Kninu: "Nažalost, bilo je nakon vojno-redarstvene akcije i slučajeva pljačkanja i paljenja srpskih kuća, bilo je i žrtava. Zbog toga treba žaliti.")  Nisam iznio prijedlog da Hrvatska uvede sluzbeni "spomendan" ili "dan sjecanja."

Na temelju teksta novinarke Suzane Barilar, HTV Dnevnik objavio je prilog u kojem se tvrdi da sam "predložio da Hrvatska službeno obilježava stradanje Srba nakon Oluje."   Takav prijedlog ne postoji u mom orginalnom tekstu u Jutarnjem Listu. 

Luka Misetic