Florence Hartmann: The Hague protected Serbia so it would avoid bankruptcy

Source: N1

The Hague witness who revealed secret agreements of the Hague tribunal, as well as the mass grave of Ovcara, journalist and activist Florence Hartmann spoke to N1 Tuesday about many obstacles she encountered in the fight for truth, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the siege of Sarajevo.

Namely, Hartmann pointed out that she saw that the Hague Tribunal had set aside the decision to release documents indicating that Serbia had participated in the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More precisely, it was decided not to make these documents available to the public.

“There are always some documents that we journalists cannot get during the trial, and the public also knew that there were those documents that did not appear during the trial of Slobodan Milosevic [Former President of Serbia]. And we knew that they were protected, and after that, the question arose as to how this is possible when it’s known that the Court was established to find out who ordered and committed the crimes. And the procedure is such that only judges can accept the request of the state, while the prosecutor's office can’t. The prosecution demands what it needed, and judges can provide protection. Serbia had no justification for the protection it received. Such protection is possible when it comes to maintaining security, but the point was to get the information. When I asked why Serbia received this protection because I know what the law is and what the exceptions are, I learned that there is a possibility that Serbia will go bankrupt if it pays money for compensation,” Hartmann said.

She also spoke about how depressed and frightened she is regarding the glorification of war criminals and commented on how the people from the political scene in the Balkans from the 90s are now returning to the scene.

“The first is an insult to the victims, and the second is the fact that identifying guilt is very important to reconstruct society after mass violence and war. This prevents reconciliation and the progress of any state. And the third thing that is important is that this glorification was not made to show that people fought a wrong war, but it is a tool for the future. Thus, verdicts should be a tool for a better future, while glorification has been used to build such a policy that continues the war by other means. It aims to achieve war goals that are still pending. The Dayton [Peace Agreement] stopped the bombing, but it had to evolve at some point,” Hartmann stressed.



Vaš komentar