Attorney Luka Misetic Relations among the attorney's of the Croatian generals awaiting their trails in the Hague are becoming increasingly worse and are verging on a conflict. Because of this, the Croatian administration was forced to intervene by threatening Luka Misetic, attorney for Ante Gotovina, that he could be left without his $25,000 monthly fee. Unlike the other attorneys who receive their fees from the new foundation, Misetic receives his fee direct from the Croatian government, as the American authorities were not satisfied with the evidence presented that the foundation is filled with money earned from war crimes.

Though the majority of those involved would say that there is no conflict among the attorney's, last week's comments of the possibility that five of the attorneys will have to be removed from the case due to a conflict of interest has only increased tensions among them, particularly between Luka Misetic and Miroslav Separovic, who is only a step away from losing his status as an ICTY attorney.

On Saturday, 18 November, a meeting was held to establish a truce, but the true outcome can only be expected in the coming weeks, when the ICTY trial chamber will make its decision on whether or not Mladen Markac will be able to keep his attorney to date, Miroslav Separovic. The decision of the trial chamber will be preceded by an opinion from the ICTY Attorney's Chamber, which will also have to address the letter Misetic is expected to send to the ICTY this week. In it, Misetic will state whether he intends to call Miroslav Separovic as a necessary witness for the defence of his client. If the answer is positive, it is very likely that Separovic will not be permitted to defend Mladen Markac. However, if Misetic states that Separovic is not a necessary witness, he could then suffer: the ICTY trial chamber could take his license due to unethical conduct.

The complication relations of the Hague lawyers began on 20 February of this year, when the Tribunal Prosecution proposed that the trial of Ante Gotovina be merged with that of Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac. The attorneys of all three generals voiced their opposition to that idea in writing, with Luka Misetic most persistent: he claimed that there was a potential conflict of interest for three of his colleagues—Miroslav Separovic, Cedo Prodanovic and Jadranka Slokovic. According to Misetic, Separovic was in a conflict of interest as the Gotovina defence team intended to call him as a witness to testify of the martial courts at the time, with Misetic stating that these were under the jurisdiction of Separovic's ministry.

Meanwhile, Cedo Prodanovic and Jadranka Slokovic would be in a conflict of interest as, in addition to Ivan Cermak, they both also represent Rahim Ademi. There is the assumption that Cermak could build his defence case by shifting responsibility from himself onto Gotovina and his deputy Ademi, and Prodanovic and Slokovic would have to defend one client by attacking another.

Though legal experts claim that Misetic has a legitimate right to call any witness he wishes and to warn of a possible conflict of interest, there is some speculation that his letter has a tactical goal. On the one hand, this would refute the merger of hte cases, thereby allowing his defence team more breathing room while, on the other, in the event of a merger, these arguments could distance Prodanovic, Slokovic and Separovic, thereby giving Gotovina a significant advantage in relation to the newly appointed attorneys of Cermak and Markac.

This past July, the ICTY First Instance Council approved the prosecution's request to merge the cases against Gotovina, Cermak and Markac, while also commenting on the potential conflict of interest: the Council assessed that a possible conflict of interest for Prodanovic and Slokovic would not harm the defendants in a merged case and that this is not adequate argument to separate the cases, as the conflict of interest would still exist in this case. The Separovic case, however, is a more serious problems and for those well-informed in the situation, it was already clear that Misetic's claim of a conflict of interest had been taken very seriously.

t the end of the summer, there was a serious difference of opinion between Misetic, Prodanovic, Slokovic and Separovic, so on 7 September, a dinner was organized at a Hague restaurant to try to iron out the problems and decide on how to proceed. At that dinner, Misetic promised Separovic that he would retract his request for Separovic's testimony in writing. However, while waiting for the decision of the trail chamber on the merger of the cases in October, Separovic realized that Misetic had not sent his promised letter to the Hague. Meanwhile, Prodanovic and Slokovic learned that the ICTY Attorney's Chamber had begun to investigate the possibility of a conflict of interest in their cases.

Even then, there was speculation that Misetic stood behind this move by the chamber. Namely, the chamber, in principle, begins to work on a case only upon receiving a report. However, in this case, the chamber began their investigation upon their own initiative, which is a type of precedent. For those reasons, yet another reconciliatory dinner was held one month ago in the Zagreb restaurant Baltazar. Again Separovic asked Misetic to submit a written request to the ICTY backing away from his testimony.

On 25 October, the ICTY Appeals Council confirmed the first instance decision to merge the cases. Other than a mild description of a possible conflict of interest of Prodanovic and Slokovic, there was a statement that “the Appeals Council expects that Separovic, in line with his ethic and professional duties, will resign as Markac’s attorney, unless he can prove that his resignation would cause Markac significant difficulties”.

Faced with this, in early November, Miroslav Separovic initiated new steps to stay in the Hague. He received a letter from his client Mladen Markac saying that losing Separovic would cause him irreparable damage, as the two men had already gone through over 15,000 documents together. Separovic himself wrote a statement that the Gotovina defence team had mislead the Appeals Council, as he was not a necessary witness and the martial courts that Misetic mentions were not under the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry. Furthermore, Separovic asked Misetic to publicly state that he would not call him as a necessary witness. On 7 November, Separovic sent a letter to the Hague containing three important annexes: the statements by Markac and Separovic and articles published in the Croatian newspapers where Misetic, in Separovic’s opinion, stated that he would back away from calling upon Separovic to testify.

In the meantime, two other events took place to further increase tensions between Misetic, Prodanovic, Slokovic and Separovic. On the one hand, there was speculation of a possible conflict of interest of Misetic’s colleague Greg Kehoe who, when serving as an ICTY prosecutor, was the first to coin the term “joint criminal operation”. As Gotovina’s attorney, he now has to break the construction that he built up in the Blaskic case.

On the other hand, Misetic received a serious warning from the Hague: if he backed away from his request that Separovic testify, the ICTY judges could interpret Misetic’s prior request as tactical. This would mean that Misetic had been playing with the court for months, and could result in a serious penalty.

Aware of the fact that he had initiated a very problematic situation for himself and several of his colleagues, primarily for Separovic, in recent days, Misetic has been trying to iron out the problems by claiming that he had never stated that he would back away from calling Separovic as a necessary witness. However, Misetic did give such a statement, once to Nova TV on Thursday 16 November and once to NCL Media Group CEO, Ivo Pukanic. Misetic now claims that he would accept testimony from Separovic’s former assistant or deputy, in place of Separovic himself.

Such statements, which the domestic legal circles have assessed as being not overly credible, have caused additional problems for Separovic: if the ICTY and Attorney’s Chamber believes Misetic, then Separovic will not only have problems with the conflict of interest, but he will also be under the stigma that, by sending the Croatian articles with Misetic’s incorrectly interpreted statements, he intentionally mislead the court which could also lead to punishment. On the other hand, if the ICTY believes Separovic, then Misetic will be penalized.

On Friday, 17 November, Nacional requested all the persons involved to comment on the situation. Attorney Cedo Prodanovic briefly stated that he is not “in any conflict, not even a conflict of interest”. Separovic repeated his claim that he is “not a necessary witness” and that Misetic promised to retract his request for testimony.

On the evening news, Separovic was harsher saying, “if all this doesn’t stop, the government should reconsider its financing of an attorney who, instead of working together with the other attorneys to refute the thesis of a joint criminal operations and defend the Croatian generals, is playing some other game”.

That afternoon, Misetic explained his perspective to Nacional’s reporter. “For us, it’s not important who testifies but the content of the testimony. If Separovic’s deputy or assistant can testify on matters that Separovic himself should testify to, we would agree to that. Separovic is relevant to our defence, but is not a mandatory witness. I will send a letter to the Hague next week emphasizing two points: first, that Miroslav Separovic should remain a part of the case and two, that we are prepared to accept a compromise solution if the Appeal’s Council should so agree,” said Misetic.

As Nacional has learned, a third meeting was held on Saturday 18 November in which the three sides tried to find a solution to allow both Separovic and Misetic an elegant way out of a complicated mess. The only agreement was that all participants would avoid making any public statements and accusations under the final opinion from the ICTY Attorney’s Chamber was received.

Separovic also used his connections with the Premier and the government. During the day, the government sent Misetic a clear message that his continued financing from the Croatian government would depend on his next move. In other words, Misetic was told that his written letter would have to clearly back away from calling Separovic a necessary witness.

email to: Plamenko Cvitić