IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said the report of the Tribunal was partly outdated, as many relevant developments had occurred since it had been finalized in July. If included, they would have provided a more balanced picture, particularly in the segment that pertained to cooperation of States with the Tribunal. One example was his Government's transfer of Vinko Martinovic to the custody of the Tribunal, which had been effected. The report was unbalanced because it emphasized the difficulties the Tribunal had faced in dealing with States, while excluding those positive developments. It was unfortunate that the alleged difficulties were not placed in the overall context of Croatia's cooperation with the Tribunal and its efforts to resolve problems in a mutually satisfactory manner. The report presented a distorted picture of Croatia's cooperation and had made offensive characterizations of a political debate on the work of the

Tribunal that had been held in the Croatian Parliament, singling out Croatian officials by name. This went beyond the Tribunal's mandate and departed from established practices of United Nations reporting.

He said that while Croatia had an obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal, it was clear that the Tribunal should undertake its work, including its reporting within its mandate, objectively and impartially. Genuine cooperation could only be based on mutual respect and understanding between the Tribunal and relevant States. In a region where a common interpretation of historical events had never existed, the work of the Tribunal was of paramount importance in bringing about conditions of lasting peace and stability. For the said of future generations, its judgements should represent not only a record of committed crimes, but also an objective historic account of the developments that had occurred during the violent process of the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was vital that the Tribunal reflect in its work the extent and level of involvement of the various sides in the war crimes committed. The breakdown of indictees still did not reflect what had actually taken plac

e. Concluding, he said that the Tribunal represented a crucial experiment to determine whether the international community was prepared for a permanent International Criminal Court of wider jurisdiction; therefore, its interpretation of international humanitarian law was of great importance. The Tribunal had achieved a partial success in many respects, and Croatia would continue to give its full support in the future.