PROFESSOR NIKOLA VISKOVIC CONVICTED

AIM, SPLIT, July 11, 1994

By a decision of Ivo Bakalic, judge of the Communal Court in Split, Prof.Dr.Nikola Viskovic was found guilty in a private defamation lawsuit initiated by Vladimir Seks, Vice-Prime Minister of the Croatian Government. The accused is obliged to pay a fine of one thousand kunas (something below DM 3,000), while the valid judgement will be published at Viskovic's expense in the "Novi List" a weekly from Rijeka and "Vijesnik" from Zagreb. By a court decree the respondent shall also pay one thousand kunas for court expenses and 1,600 kunas for the expenses of the plaintiff.

As explained by judge Bakalic, Nikola Viskovic, in an interview on November 27, 1993 to the "Novi list", which was also partly carried by the "Vijesnik",in its issue on December 2, made allegations of terrorist acts of the right wing of the Croat Democratic Union (HDZ) also implicating Vladimir Seks, and all this without any proof, thereby causing damage to the reputation and honour of the plaintiff. The fact that Viskovic later corrected that statement in an interview to the weekly "Feral Tribune" did not carry the same weight as it would have had it been published in the "Novi list" because different readerships are in question. Everyone has the right to criticize - pointed out judge Bakalic - but such criticism must be based on true facts. He went on to say that there were attempts by the newspapars to attribute political connotations to this criminal action, but this is a private lawsuit of one citizen against another citizen.

The judge repudiated the allegations that the Split Communal Court was not competent for this criminal proceeding. In deciding between a prison sentence, i.e. a conditional sentence and a fine, the Court opted for a fine and among other extenuating circumstances for Prof.Viskovic was the fact that in his public activities he deals with social criticism, and mistakes are possible. This fine, explained judge Bakalic, will not prevent Nikola Viskovic from engaging in criticism in the future, but he will have to take care what his criticism is based on. We are the witnesses, said the judge, of much unfounded criticism in the press, which shows the level of pollution of the media space in Croatia.

Judge Bakalic also mentioned that Zdeslav Alajbeg, attorney of Vladimir Seks did not agree to reconciliation at the beginning of the trial, so that he instructed him to demand a 10,000 kunas indemnification (almost DM 3,000) in a further litigation suit. The decision on expenses is based on legal provisions, while the dissatisfied party may lodge an appeal within seven days - concluded the judge his explanation.

As we have learned, Nikola Viskovic and his counsels shall lodge an appeal against this court ruling. In his closing plea Dr.Viskovic, among other things said: - The Statute of the Hague Court makes it obligatory to punish not only those who have personally committed crimes, but also "a superior who knew or might have known that the perpetrator was committing or has committed an act against international humanitarian law and failed to undertake the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts and punish the perpetrator". If I didn't categorically claim that Mr.Seks was committing a terrorist act, for which I don't have any proof and which doesn't suit the level of his office, I have the right to invoke Article 71 of the Criminal Code and information implying the possibility of such activities of Mr.Seks as I have "reason to believe the authenticity of what I am claiming or stating".

Is it possible to disbelieve what the former Minister of Police of the Republic of Croatia, Josip Boljkovac, stated: that Vladimir Seks is involved in the murder of the Chief of the Police in Osijek, Reichl Kir? This statement was published in the daily papers and no one refuted it, while Mr.Seks did not sue Mr.Boljkovac. I addressed Josip Boljkovac with the question of whether he was really behind that claim and he answered that he stood behind it fully.

• I believe in the verdict - said Prof.Viskovic in closing his defense - not only in my own interest, but also in the interest of the legal order of Croatia. Whoever goes into politics has no right to complain because of the consequences. Many politicians, scientists and others keep silent about all that is dangerous, and I am worried whether, given the present flood of defamation suits instituted by powerful political personalities against their critics we shall not begin establishing in Croatia a legal practice which shall inhibit the freedom of the public word rather than introducing such court practice as shall encourage the freedom of political criticism and prevent the political power lords from abusing the institute of defamation against the civil freedom of thought and expression, just as in the USA, Germany and other developed systems high politicians are not allowed to use that mechanism irrespective how harsh the publicly pronounced judgements on them.

Before Prof.Veskovic, the Split lawyer Alajbeg made his closing remarks on behalf of the plaintiff, to be followed by Viskovic's counsels, lawyers Mirko Franceschi and Cedo Prodanovic. At the beginning of the proceedings, which lasted exactly five months, evidence, submitted at the proposal of the defence was produced. Newspaper articles from several Croat papers were inspected and those attending the trial saw a filming of the interview of Vladimir Seks given to the Zagreb Youth Television.

In his closing remarks lawyer Alajbeg referred to the legal definition of defamation and claimed that the accused Viskovic had presented untruths and thereby inflicted harm to the honour and reputation of Vladimir Seks. Viskovic speaks about the left and right wings in the HDZ, describing the left as angelic and the right as fiendish. Such theses need no polemics - pointed out Alajbeg - for it is well known that the 20th century is a century of the terror of the left. Viskovic charges the left wing of the HDZ of non-doing, and the right of doing. In other words, he reproaches Seks for active terrorism.

Viskovic's counsels pointed out that the defendant was not guilty and asked for the dismissal of the charges and acquittal. They emphasized that this was not an ordinary action of one citizen against another, for the charges state that Vladimir Seks is the Vice President of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, while no indication of the profession of Dr.Viskovic is made. They proceed from positions of superiority - said Mirko Franceschi and that cannot be taken advantage of in a private lawsuit. Nikola Viskovic has for years been drawing attention to mistakes doing harm to Croatian democracy, and always with a view to protecting the constitutional order of Croatia. In his efforts he identifies criminals in the occupied parts of Croatia, as well as those outside the front. Vladimir Seks is not an ordinary party official and is, therefore, responsible for certain inefficiency, especially at the time he was State Prosecutor - emphasized the counsels of the accused Nikola Viskovic at the end.

LJUBICA VUKO