VZCZCXRO1554
RR RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVB #0023 0141537
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 141537Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY ZAGREB
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8473
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L ZAGREB 000023 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
EUR/SCE FOR BALIAN, STINCHCOMB 
S/WCI FOR AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/14/2018 
TAGS: KAWC PGOV HR WAR CRIMES
SUBJECT: WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION OF MP GLAVAS CONTINUES, BUT 
DETENTION ENDS 
 
REF: A. A. ZAGREB 00019 
 
     ¶B. B. 2007 ZAGREB 372 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified By: POLOFF Douglas Fisk for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
 ¶1. (SBU)  Subsequent to the Zagreb County Court's decision 
last week (REF A) that Branimir Glavas had re-gained 
parliamentary immunity due to his re-election to the Croatian 
Sabor, the Sabor's Mandates and Immunities Committee met on 
January 12 and overwhelmingly voted to again lift Glavas' 
immunity from prosecution for alleged war crimes committed in 
the city of Osijek in the early 1990's.  In a separate and 
narrower vote, however, the Sabor Committee decided to 
maintain Glavas' immunity from detention while the trial is 
underway.  The Committee decisions were then confirmed by the 
full Sabor.   The decision to allow the prosecution of Glavas 
to continue was nearly unanimous (132 yeas and one 
abstention), while the vote to keep Glavas out of detention 
was much narrower (81 in favor, 49 against, and three 
abstentions).  The votes mean that the trial against Glavas 
will continue, but that he will no longer be held in 
detention, where he has been held for several months due the 
court's concerns about possible witness tampering, while the 
trial proceeds. The next session of the trial is scheduled 
for January 21. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Sabor action to block any effort by the courts 
to continue Glavas' detention was supported by the main 
ruling coalition parties, the HDZ, HSS and HSLS, as well as 
Glavas' own HDSSB party and the one right-wing HSP 
representative.  The Croatian Serb SDSS party, which is part 
of the ruling coalition, refused to go along with its 
colaition partners, and voted to permit Glavas to stay in 
detention.  HDZ parliamentarians explained their party's 
shift from its position of a year and a half ago, when it had 
voted to allow Glavas' detention, by arguing that there were 
no longer serious concerns that Glavas would engage in 
witness tampering, particularly given his deteriorating 
health (brought on by Glavas' repeated hunger strikes 
protesting his detention).  Other commentators noted that the 
HDZ clearly wants to avoid the possibility of Glavas' death 
by hunger-strike while in detention making him a martyr, 
particularly with local elections looming in a few weeks in 
Glavas' political base of Osijek. Upon receiving news of the 
vote, Glavas immediately discontinued his hunger strike and 
was transferred by ambulance from Zagreb's prison hospital to 
a hospital in Osijek. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Nonetheless, the Sabor's decision to allow Glavas to 
remain out of detention has drawn considerable criticism. 
Sources in the State Prosectuor's office are quoted in the 
press as being very concerned that Glavas will in fact be 
more able to coach and/or pressure witnesses in the trial, 
and that this could cause serious damage to the prosecution's 
case.  Other commentators have denounced the apparent 
meddling by the Sabor into what should more appropriately be 
judicial decisions regarding whether or not Glavas' continued 
detention was necessary.  The president of the Croatian 
Helsinki Committee was quoted as saying the decision could 
even threaten a "constitutional crisis." 
 
¶4. (C) COMMENT:  We are reassured to see such an overwhelming 
majority of Sabor members accept that the charges against 
Glavas are serious enough to merit continued investigation 
and prosecution.  The seriousness of the case, however, is 
all the more reason that this trial must be conducted 
effectively and without political interference.  While we 
cannot judge whether Glavas' continued detention is crucial 
to ensuring a proper trial, we doubt that the Sabor can make 
such a judgment either, and take seriously the reports of the 
prosecutors' concerns about Glavas' ability to influence the 
trial if not in detention.  It is disappointing that the 
Sabor and the government were unwilling to let the decision 
about whether Glavas should be detained during trial remain 
in the court's hands.  END COMMNET. 
BRADTKE