Croatian general Ante Gotovina's lawyer Luka Misetic on Tuesday attacked the closing statements by the Hague war crimes tribunal's Office of the Prosecution, saying the prosecutors were making a series of new arguments against his client instead of doing so during the examination in chief.
Those arguments should therefore be disregarded, Misetic said in the continuation of closing statements in the "Gotovina, Cermak and Markac" case, saying the prosecutors deprived the defence of the right to examine those arguments and refute them.
In their closing statements, the prosecutors argued that not only Gotovina, but the Croatian state leadership, too, ostensibly issued commands to prevent crimes, although they were actually aimed at inciting those crimes, said Misetic.
Where is the evidence of such a radical conclusion by the prosecution, he asked, telling the trial chamber that owing to the lack of evidence of such a hypocritical intent on Gotovina's part, they should interpret the general's commands in the only possible way, namely that their real meaning was what they actually said - prevention of crimes.
Another new argument by the prosecution is that Gotovina was involved in a joint criminal intent to cover up crimes by referring the international community's objections to General Ivan Cermak, Misetic said, adding the prosecution concluded from that, like the devil's advocate, that not being notified by the international community was part of Gotovina's guilt for the crimes.
Misetic said the defence also objected to the fact that the prosecution only in the closing statements brought into question the testimony of US General Anthony Ray Jones instead of trying to contest it during cross-examination.
Jones told the tribunal that in his opinion Gotovina had done everything he should have to stop and punish crimes and that in his place, he would not have done more.
Misetic dismissed the prosecution's argument that Gotovina's commands to prevent arson and looting in towns were in fact his call for destroying rural areas.
The prosecution will resort to ridiculous interpretations rather than accept the evidence, he said.
Gotovina's other counsel, Gregory Kehoe, said the evidence indicated that Gotovina did not order the random shelling of civilian targets, but that his commands were in line with the military doctrine of both Croatia and NATO.
