YouSaid · the spoken record

President Grabar-Kitarovie

lines on the record
18
first
2017-12-06
most recent
2017-12-06
sittings or episodes
1
sources
un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “Saint Pope John Paul 11 said, "no peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness the path of forgiveness, which opens the way to mutual understanding, respect and trust". The victims of crimes committed on all sides and the families of all those who perished or remain missing deserve justice. Some received it in The Hague, many did not. Crimes must be addressed for the benefit of our future. Croatia has done that and will continue to do so, and expects it from others. I call upon the other leaders in our neighbourhood to ensure that the ICTY's judgements are not misinterpreted, misused or misconstrued, and to view this moment as the beginning of a new period - one of mutual understanding, respect and trust. My responsibility is to improve relations with our neighbours and to focus on the future.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  2. “Let me be clear: when we in Croatia speak about the greater Serbian aggression that brought about the conflict, the destruction of property and the loss of life, we do not in any way attach blame to the Serbian people as a whole, but highlight the sole responsibility of Slobodan Milosevic and his regime at the time. In conclusion, my wish is that we leave the war and all the misfortunes in our neighbourhood behind us, that we pay tribute to all the victims and condemn all the crimes and that we primarily and above all look foremost to the future. With the closing of the Tribunal, we continue to bear the responsibility of finding the strength to reconcile all nations and all peoples in our region.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  3. “Those crimes remain unpunished. Ultimately, Croatia played a pivotal role in defeating greater Serbian aggression. Upon the request for aid from Sarajevo and in accordance with our bilateral agreements, Croatia prevented the imminent danger of a repetition of the Srebrenica genocide in Bihar in 1995. The Croatian army, supported by the Croatian Defence Council and the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, confronted Slobodan Milosevic with his inevitable and total military defeat, which forced him to the negotiating table, thereby ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  4. “We will relentlessly advocate for productive dialogue among the constituent peoples and all minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thereby paving the way for its prosperous future in the European Union. It is a historical fact that Croatia was crucial in the very survival of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent State. While a victim of aggression and under threat itself at the time, Croatia for years sheltered hundreds of thousands of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and treated more than 10,000 of its wounded in Croatian hospitals. The overwhelming part of humanitarian and military aid to Bosnia and Herzegovina arrived from or through Croatia. At the same time, Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina were victims of war crimes by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular in central Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  5. “The recent ICTY judgement in the Prlic' et al case should not be misused to imply the collective guilt of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina or to hinder their legitimate political objectives as one of the three constituent peoples in the country. No community there should feel unsettled - and that is, unfortunately, what we have witnessed these days. Croats must feel secure in the homeland they share with Bosniaks and Serbs. I appeal to all politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina to think first and foremost of their responsibility for the good of both entities, and of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. Croatia, as a co-signatory and guarantor of the Dayton Peace Accords, has a special responsibility for the stability of our neighbourhood and for the preservation of Croats in their homeland of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  6. “It is important to stress that, in July 2016, the same Appeals Chamber, when rejecting Croatia's amicus curiae request and interpreting the 2013 trial judgement, clearly and unequivocally stated that no explicit findings concerning the participation in ajoint criminal enterprise of high Croatian officials were made, that they were neither indicted nor charged in the case, and that they were not found guilty of any crimes. Furthermore, the same Appeals Chamber confirmed that the Tribunal did not have the competency to make findings on State responsibility and that the findings of the Trial Chamber in no way constituted findings of responsibility on the part of Croatia.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  7. “Consequently, we reject interpretations of the ICTY's recent judgement in the case Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlic' et al. - and let me add that it was overshadowed by the tragic death of General Praljak - that it was Croatia, Croatian leadership at the time or the Croatian nation that were indicted or found guilty in front of the ICTY. The ICTY was dealing with the individual defendants who were before the Tribunal and who were parties to the proceedings. Any interpretation of that judgement outside the legal framework and the absence of explicit findings necessary to establish the criminal responsibility of Croatia or its leadership is misleading and erroneous.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  8. “We have faced that truth in Croatia and expect nothing less from others. However, there is a difference between dealing out individual responsibility and collective guilt. In creating the ICTY, the Security Council tasked the Tribunal with establishing individual criminal responsibility and confined the Tribunal to the strict application of existing international humanitarian law and criminal law. The ICTY was not to create precedents or legislate international humanitarian law and criminal law. Its duty, rather, was to uphold the highest of standards with regard to the interpretation and appropriate application of existing law. The mandate of the ICTY was to establish individual criminal responsibility for committed criminal acts, that is, to prosecute concrete individuals for concrete deeds - no more and no less than that.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  9. “Therefore, the Tribunal was not a court dealing with the legitimacy of war, but with the criminal responsibility of individuals during the course of war. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Tribunal judged individuals, the quagmire of political connotations in individual judgements and the legal and political consequences that resulted, and that will result, from its judgements, including the work of the Tribunal as a whole, is unavoidable. However, throughout its work the ICTY did contribute to the realization that crimes were committed during the war by all sides in the conflict, and those findings facilitated the process of accountability. It is not easy to find the strength to admit that some of your own compatriots committed crimes and that they should be held accountable for them.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  10. “Furthermore, one of the results of the protracted work of the Tribunal - achievements in putting the focus on the future and reconciliation - were often set back by particular judgements that provoked opposing interpretations, not allowing the sands of time to settle over the troubled history of the area. Lastly, the mastermind of the greater Serbian project that brought on the tragedy that struck the former Yugoslavia - Slobodan Milosevic - evaded final legal judgement. That remains a gaping hole in the Tribunal's legacy. The Tribunal was not established to determine the legitimacy and justification of wars, but rather whether certain individuals acted in accordance with the laws of war, in accordance with international humanitarian law and criminal law.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  11. “In the final analysis, it has to be said that, in the more than 10,000 days of its duration, the ICTY spent too much time on procedural and status-related matters, and not enough on providing the victims with a true sense of justice. We have stated in this Chamber on many occasions that justice delayed is justice denied. On far too many occasions, justice came too late or not at all. It has to be underlined that a fair trial and the due process of law in front of the ICTY depended on the interaction of responsible work by the Office of the Prosecutor, defence counsel and judges.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  12. “As some of these most horrific crimes occurred in November 1991, they were commemorated in Croatia only a few days before the final judgements rendered by the ICTY, thereby creating an emotional, highly sensitive setting. Sharing some critical assessments about the ICTY does not diminish our support for the work of the Tribunal. As in all justice systems in the world, there are deficits. I note that the ICTY Prosecutor himself has in the past publicly stated that in some cases that resulted in acquittals of the defendants, he respects the judgements of the judges but fundamentally disagrees with them. Similarly, Croatia fully supports the work of the ICTY and respects all its judgements, even if it may on occasion express its disagreement with certain aspects of the Tribunal's work.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  13. “In Croatia, to borrow the words of International Court of Justice Judge Cancado Trindade, there was an onslaught, not exactly war. Regrettably, the ICTY did not charge anyone for the horror of the three-month siege of Vukovar. While the judgement in the trial of Ratko Mladie brought a degree of relief to the families of his many victims of the genocide in Srebrenica, I would recall again that it was in Croatia in 1991 that he began his infamous warpath, which he later continued in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hundreds of his victims in Croatia, in Skabrnja or Nadin, to name just a few infamous examples, never saw him stand trial for those crimes. What is more, they were never even included in his indictment.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  14. “Pavle Strugar, the ICTY convicted yet another Yugoslav People's Army officer for attacks on the civilian population of Dubrovnik and the destruction and wilful damage to a UNESCO protected heritage site. On the other hand, last month, Croatia marked another mournful anniversary of the tragedies and atrocities of the war in the autumn of 1991. Besieged for three long months and levelled to the ground, the city of Vukovar and its inhabitants suffered a fate unseen in Europe since the Second World War. Nearly 1,000 white crosses at the Vukovar cemetery stand today as a reminder of the massacre and for the victims exhumed from mass graves in and around the city. They also stand for 86 children killed during the siege of Vukovar, the youngest being a 6-month-old infant.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  15. “When we look at the ICTY's record in bringing to justice perpetrators of war crimes committed during the onslaught on Croatia, we can be fairly satisfied with its legacy. As an example, let me highlight the case Prosecutor v. Milan Martie and the case Prosecutor v. Milan Babic', where the Tribunal established the existence of a joint criminal enterprise to expel the Croat population from occupied Croatian territory in order to create a Greater Serbia. I also note that two so-called Yugoslav People's Army officers responsible for the unimaginable atrocities at Ovcara, where over 260 Croatian prisoners - mostly wounded - were executed by Serbian forces and buried in a mass grave, were convicted and sentenced. One of them has since died in prison, and the other was released early. In the case Prosecutor v.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  16. “A quarter of a century later, as the Tribunal closes its doors, we assess its work and legacy against its expected role in securing justice for victims of all war crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, paving the path to reconciliation and putting the troubled past behind. Allow me at this point to express my deepest respect for all the victims of crimes committed on all sides, and especially to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of all those who perished or remain missing. In the overall assessment of the work of the Tribunal, we have to distinguish between legal assessment of its work and political connotations attached. In that regard, I can speak only for Croatia.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  17. “Croatia shares the assessments that the ICTY greatly lived up to the expectations of the international community, played an important role in the fight against the culture of impunity and provided an instrument for ensuring accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Equally important is the Tribunal's role in giving voice to over 100,000 victims of horrific crimes. The Tribunal has demonstrated that crimes will not go unpunished, as weall as the fact that the international community has found a means through which it can and must react. That is confirmed by the fact that, following the establishment of the ICTY, the international community established other ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court, while taking into account its experience with the ICTY, its best practices and shortcomings.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source

  18. “President Grabar-Kitarovie: I congratulate Japan for assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the month of December. I would also like to welcome Judge Agius, Judge Meron and Prosecutor Brammertz, who are present here today. Twenty-four years ago, Croatia was one of the States that strongly advocated for the establishment of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Its creation lifted the hopes of thousands of Croatians who suffered at the hands of a merciless aggressor. Croatia looked to the ICTY to shield its citizens from grave breaches of international humanitarian law and to punish perpetrators and their sponsors.”

    2017-12-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8120 (2017) · source