Florence Hartmann, journalist and author HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Hideki -- Hideki. On a same day that Bosnian detainees held Radovan

Karadzic, they held a journalist. It was her decision to reveal

confidential court decisions which led to her brief spell in customers.

She says the world had a right to know that Serbia was allowed to keep

secret documents which could have helped victims of war crimes to win

compensation stop critics say her actions may be harder for the

victims to get compensation in the future. Did Florence Hartmann put

journalistic ambition before just as? -- justice?

Florence Hartmann, welcome. Thursday the 24th of March, the International

criminal Tribunal in The Hague for Radovan Karadzic, the former

president of Bosnia. It is judgement day. Why were you there? It was an

historical day for me because as a journalist, I have worked through

1990, his speeches and then the way he implemented his political goals

through mass violence, mass crimes, and I was even expelled for covering

those crimes. The president in 1993, I was then thrown out because I was

speaking the truth. But I was just expelled, I was not put in jail.

Then I worked with the chief prosecutor of two 2006, that was

before Radovan Karadzic was arrested. Was He on the run for 13

years, I have been working on this for many years. The police have no

ability to apprehend fugitives or whatever.

I left before he was arrested, two years before. That was the subject

of international justice, to bring them to accountability. Now we have

the results of a long trial, and what was the verdict. Your lawyer

said you are shocked by the verdict, where you close your yes, I

was. -- shocked by your arrest. I had an

international arrest warrant. So far, when it was issued, it was

given only to France and the Netherlands, which there is

absolutely no reason to have that. I was afraid to travel for the first

15 days. Then when I understood that, I could go to a country where

I could check. I was on the list of people to be arrested on the border.

I am going in various countries, but specifically in the Balkans I

Sure, but you were at the Hague, you were at the tribunal, so you

must have known that they were likely to prosecute that warrant

I know you dispute whether the money was there

but they had not taken the money and they converted it from a fine to a

If the Dutch never arrested you, if the tribunal does not send the

arrest warrant to countries where I always go and they know I am there.

They say you were not on Dutch soil but the territory

Explain why, you can see in the video, and many TVs were there, why

If there is UN territory, and you have no Dutch police, either it is

the sovereignty of the Netherlands, and you have Dutch police.

The Dutch say they were there to ensure crowd safety.

There would not have been enough security to do with it.

What is not in dispute is that this was the day

the victims of Karadzic's polities - and indeed the families of the dead

Was it a mistake for you to distract attention from them?

They invited me to come, as well as TV from the former Yugoslavia,

Is it a good enough reason to overcome

concerns not only about whether you would get arrested but also

You could have done that from the studio and still watch the judgement

No, I wasn't watching the judgement, I came ahead of the judgement.

And that was to support the victims, because they are expecting justice.

They wanted me to analyse the verdict, because it is not about

40 years, it is on what, on which charge he has been convicted or not,

shocked by your arrest. I had an international arrest warrant. So

and there were very technical issues as whether the tribunal would

recognise genocide from '92 or only for '95 in relation to Srebrenica.

And that was what people expected me to assist them.

I was not trying to get inside to follow the...

One journalist with knowledge of the Balkans war, who is an admirer

of your efforts, told us he was cross with your decision to attend.

He said, what did she think would happen?

It turned the spotlight from the victims and families

Well, I explained I was invited by the victims.

Maybe you will call it, I don't answer,

I was been a witness of mass violence.

As a generation, along with other journalists, educated with

"never again," and it was betrayed in front of our eyes after the fall

of the ball Berlin Wall when we expected Europe would be safe.

Journalists, together with public opinion,

those who established a tribunal, we asked for accountability.

OK, and I want to ask you about your experiences a little later.

We will finish this question of what happened to you.

You were detained for a matter of days in the detention centre there.

You complained about your conditions.

You were not happy with the fact you were segregated

No, because I am travelling in the former Yugoslavia, I have

testified as a prosecution witness against some of them, for Vukovar

massacre, and they are living freely in the countries I am visiting.

But I am talking about people who are also in the detention centre.

The commanding officer, let me tell you what he said, and this was

brought up in the appeal over your conditions, he said it would be

extremely difficult to guarantee the physical safety of Ms Hartmann as a

high profile member of the tribunal's prosecution team

if she was allowed to mingle with detainees.

I hope you read the next paragraph, which is completely the opposite,

saying that I am a prominent journalist who has authored several

books on the Balkans, which means clearly that I speak their language.

They are worried I will speak with them.

The following paragraph is that she could observe or she could pass

information, so I would be the best confidant of those people,

which is completely contradictory with the first paragraph.

They didn't want me to do my job as a journalist within the detention

for doing my job in the detention unit, so it's quite a Kafka story.

Let me go back then to the circumstances that led to this

That I did not expect to be arrested because no European country wanted

to arrest me because they were informed by my lawyer and

by myself that there were so many irregularities during the preceding

that the conviction was secured through

violation of European Convention on Human Rights and that I would sue

And secondly, they had no reason to limit my own freedom to assist

justice, together with victims for which justice was to be

rendered, just because there are some judges who do not accept the

This was all the result of a book you published in 2007, and then

an online article in 2008, exposing details of decision reached by the

Because it was in the public domain that there was

a deal between the institution, the ICTY, and the state, Serbia,

and I was not happy with the fact that it was the institution.

You have to name people otherwise you contribute to discredit

And I am a supporter of international justice.

And so I was very surprised that the journalist did not investigate that.

And I did it at the end of the book because the subject came out while I

I had left the tribunal, I came back to journalism and writing.

OK, so any suggestion this is information acquired when working

It was never alleged, even by the ICTY, who doesn't like me.

I disclosed the key element which were told to meet, and they were

right, in the end I was indicted, confirming it was the truth.

The tribunal did say that in the course

of this it said that Ms Hartmann knew how to accurately convey

information to the public without taking the risk of infringing

You are an experienced journalist and communicator who could have got

the essence of this across without actually doing the things that lead

Oh, sorry, I am sorry I did my job as a journalist,

I had obviously good sources and I didn't know that I was quoting

precisely the decision because I haven't seen it.

I knew that the whole story was confidential.

My story showed that it was not only an immoral deal

between the tribunal, namely judges from the appeal chamber,

With the state being Serbia, and to be clear for those watching, this is

about documents that were disclosed to the court but then were not made

public, and you felt that those documents could have helped the

victims of war in a different court get compensation?

Yeah, that was what the victims were looking for,

You can have confidentiality on documents, a state is entitled

to request specific confidential measures, but only limitation

of the freedom of information goes on very specific terms.

For instance, national security interest.

The legal reasoning I disclosed was that there is no

"We cannot grant you the special security confidential measure you

But we will not apply the law, we will give you...

Hang on, the expectation was created by the court itself,

which was the point the appeal chamber made, the expectation was

created sometime ago by the court and therefore on this occasion that

Yeah, but I don't know who is making promises and everything.

This is about saying, the rules were this, you can't change

the rules halfway through, that's unmanifestly unfair to either paty.

The rules were saying you can grant it on specific reasons...

There is a UN Security Council resolution...

Absolutely, and there is one paragraph, which is number seven,

saying that the tribunal should not take any decisions

which are going against the right of the victim to seek reparation.

There were no funds created with the tribunal to pay reparation to

Netherlands, which there is absolutely no reason to have that. I

was afraid to travel for the first 15 days. Then when I understood

that, I could go to a country where I could check. I was on the list of

And yet, as you also said in your online article in 2008,

the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, the one that was

hearing this claim that could have led to compensation, could have

Curiously, the court didn't ask Serbians to hand them over.

That is not the point of the war crimes tribunals, that is

Yes, either you have Bosnia, who could bring those documents,

they were not given, or you can have a judge saying that for the sake of

No, so in other words it made no difference to the claim that

But they were exposed now, because of my exposing the decision.

So you would argue that your article and book helped bring

More archives are available to the victims now, and I am very happy.

And I was convicted, while the decision was overturned

So it is completely, always, contradictory.

And I am doing my job, as you are doing your job

Is it a problem, for instance, that the BBC or other...

Other British journalists spoke about the sexed up report

It may be their job, but you have to consider the

consequences of your actions, don't you, as any journalist has to do?

Let me put a question to you now, and that is this.

It is true, is it not, that the existence of a deal

between the tribunal and the Serbian government had long since

So, therefore, what did your publication add to that?

I told you that I took out the issue of the idea to name

I decided to name what was already in the public domain.

Yes, because if you want to support international justice...

You don't drop democracy because you have one minister corrupt.

You speak about mainly the one who is corrupt.

Well, that is a serious allegation to make.

Because the judges would say, I am sure, were they here, and they are

not here to defend themselves, that they made their judgement based on

Now, you can dispute that, but that is a different perspective.

They were saying, in the decision, they were saying that they don't

want to apply the law, they will do something else.

Because if I could ask this question,

which is, the rules were one thing, you can't change them halfway,

You are saying you are supporting international justice.

Let me put you what the tribunal has said.

They said the effect of Ms Hartmann's disclosure was too

decrease the likelihood of states co-operating

in the future, therefore undermining its ability to prosecute serious

It is giving me a serious lot of influence.

Would you say that a journalist speaking about a corrupt minister

would decrease the love for democracy from other countries?

But this is a court, and it is a court that depends

on its moral authority in order to persuade people.

You yourself said at the start of this interview this court does

It cannot enforce, it cannot go and drag people into the court.

It needs the cooperation of those states.

Absolutely, and I am for cooperating with those states.

And I was the first spokesperson of the tribunal speaking

And I was calling the politicians over the weekend, night and day,

when I was working, for six years, to co-operate with the tribunal.

Wasn't this publication more about journalistic ego?

No, it was about the first in-depth analysis of international justice.

The first explaining it was quite exposed to political pressure,

and that was a problem for the credibility of international

justice, and that it should be supported by the public, and we

should explain and understand where was the problem,

in order not to say, we don't want it because it is not good.

Because that would be supporting the position of the war criminals.

There was some dysfunction, how to improve them,

They know how to encourage, even to compel

their own states to send better judges, for instance, even the

states to better co-operate, because the cooperation was a problem.

Not only from the state or the region, it was a problem.

France would say we wouldn't give military archives, the US,

Great Britain, they wouldn't give anything.

You know, you need this pressure from outside,

I never violated anything related to investigation, and I had

I was working for the prosecution, I was not working with the judges, and

But I had access to the names of witnesses, to everything.

And contempt of court is to punish those who disclose the name of...

Anything that undermines the work of the court, isn't it?

And they argued that you undermined the work of the court.

We will leave that, because you have been clear.

It is interfering with justice, I haven't interfered with justice.

But you have prevented future cases coming,

I brought more defendants to the court.

You were the first to bring to light one of

I risked my life to find the first mass grave.

The UN had a special commission to look for

information, that was the Polish Prime Minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki,

They had no means, but they were in good relation with...

And this is back in October 1992, when you helped expose this mass

They got information from a survivor from this mass

killing, and they were not entitled to give any information.

They had to hide, and they were a UN commission,

They said, there is a mass grave in Vukovar you

Then I got some input, not from them, from local sources,

And I went there, because I knew that

if I found a mass grave it would be the same, though I could tell

The mass grave is from the missing people from the hospital

260 people who were taken from that hospital and killed

And at that time Mazowiecki did greet me, half-an-hour after

my article was published, didn't send me in jail because I disclosed

In the end, of 161 accused, 81 people have been held

accountable, they have been convicted, some charges have been

withdrawn, about 19 acquittals, some sent to other courts.

But that is a pretty impressive record, isn't it?

In the end, this tribunal has done its job.

Not to blame the tribunal itself, but the circumstances,

the environment, was so difficult because everyone wanted...

At one point, you know, that was great, when they were

documenting the crimes, and when they were getting along the

And as soon as they got at the top, then, you know,

Thank you so much for joining us on HARDtalk.

Our weather story for the next few days is,

We've got a big, lumbering area of low pressure down to the south-west