Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has published an article by its Balkan correspondent Michael Martens, who investigated the “Sarajevo Safari” story and concluded that what is currently known about the case contains numerous inconsistencies.
Martens is currently in Sarajevo gathering information on the “Sarajevo Safari” allegations. In the first of three planned articles on the subject, he examines inconsistencies found in Miran Zupanič’s documentary Sarajevo Safari, as well as in the books Weekend Snipers by Ezio Gavazzeni and Pay and Shoot by Domagoj Margetić. The second FAZ article will focus on testimonies from Sarajevo residents, while the third, scheduled for publication on July 11, will address a topic the author has not yet disclosed. Martens notes that he spent six months conducting this investigation.
At the beginning of the article, Martens explains to German readers what happened in Sarajevo between 1992 and 1995, what the “Sarajevo Safari” allegations are, and how the story entered the public sphere. His analysis focuses on three sources: the documentary and the two books.
“However, none of these three works can withstand even the most basic critical scrutiny when it comes to the reliability of their sources. Anyone who watches the film and reads the books will ultimately know very little. The scandal involving wealthy hunters of human beings is insinuated and amplified throughout these works, but it is neither supported by evidence nor convincingly explained. The fact that Zupanič, Gavazzeni and Margetić are frequently presented in media reports as ‘investigative journalists’ does not in any way justify the quality of their work,” the FAZ article states.
Martens also notes that investigations conducted so far have produced no results, citing the criminal complaint filed by former Sarajevo mayor Benjamina Karić after the premiere of the Slovenian filmmaker’s documentary.
“Nearly four years later, the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor’s Office has still not filed an indictment. That is hardly surprising, given that there is no evidence capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny,” the article says.
Analysis of the documentary Sarajevo Safari
Martens argues that all information in the documentary relating to the alleged presence of foreign tourists on the hills surrounding Sarajevo comes from anonymous and unreliable sources. He adds that the film combines these claims with authentic wartime footage, making the narrative appear more convincing.
“The principal source of this alleged documentary about alleged human hunting is an anonymous individual. His face is never shown, nor is his identity revealed. His account is interwoven with authentic and disturbing footage of sniper victims, along with the story of a couple who lost their daughter. Those images and that story are real. However, through manipulative editing, the film suggests that foreign tourists were responsible,” the article states.
Martens also questions another testimony presented in the film. Former intelligence officer Edin Subašić claims that a captured Serb soldier told him in 1993 he had seen five Italians on the front line, three of whom allegedly admitted they had paid to shoot Sarajevo civilians.
Martens asks why neither the filmmaker nor the other researchers ever attempted to identify or locate that soldier.
“Does a record of that interrogation still exist? Did the prisoner survive the war? Is he still alive? If so, where is he? Would he testify again? Neither Gavazzeni nor the filmmaker asks these obvious questions. Instead, new ones arise: Was the captured Serb telling the truth? What exactly did he say? Did he even exist?” Martens writes.
Analysis of Ezio Gavazzeni’s book
According to FAZ, Gavazzeni’s book contains even more serious problems than the documentary, including factual errors such as identifying a Siberian location as being in Yugoslavia.
“Gavazzeni, who apparently saw no need to investigate on location or conduct interviews in Sarajevo, proceeds with remarkable ignorance through the territory he describes. For example, he refers to a Yugoslav infantry unit stationed in Norilsk. The only problem is that Norilsk is not in Yugoslavia but in Siberia’s permafrost region,” the article states.
Martens argues that Gavazzeni demonstrates a poor understanding of the Balkans and repeats both his own misconceptions and those of his interviewees.
The article cites several factual mistakes, including claims that roads in Serbia were bombed during the Bosnian war or that Romania was also at war at the time. One of the most significant errors, according to Martens, concerns alleged flights from Trieste to Belgrade.
“More important than these mistakes, however, are the fundamentally flawed assumptions. The alleged ‘weekend snipers’ supposedly arrived by air. Gavazzeni claims that these bloody excursions likely began with flights from Trieste or Parma to Belgrade before continuing overland. Yet Belgrade Airport and Serbian airspace were closed under UN Security Council Resolution 757 in May 1992. Any exceptions required individual approval. The restrictions remained in place until the end of 1994.”
Martens also interviewed British journalist Tim Judah, who covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia in 1992 for The Times and The Economist.
Judah said it took “an eternity” to enter Bosnia and Herzegovina from Belgrade and that it could hardly have served as a “tourist route,” although he did not rule out the possibility of isolated individual cases.
“Someone who writes about logistics such as flights from Trieste to Belgrade clearly has no idea that Belgrade Airport was closed,” Judah said.
FAZ concludes that while isolated foreign shooters cannot be categorically excluded, the claim of a large-scale operation involving hundreds of participants unnoticed by journalists, humanitarian workers and UN personnel is highly implausible.
The article also questions Gavazzeni’s casualty figures, comparing them with research by Mirsad Tokača.
“According to Tokača, snipers were responsible for approximately 350 deaths during the siege of Sarajevo. Gavazzeni claims that around 230 shooters came from Italy alone, with additional participants from France, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria. Many allegedly killed several victims during a single trip. One Italian sniper is quoted as having killed two children, one woman and three elderly people in six hours. If these figures were extrapolated, they would suggest that Serb forces had virtually nothing to do with the sniper campaign in Sarajevo and that all sniper victims were killed by foreigners, while Mladić’s troops merely watched.”
Analysis of Domagoj Margetić’s book
Martens describes Margetić’s claims in Pay and Shoot as the least convincing, focusing particularly on the Croatian author’s credibility.
He quotes Croatian journalist Boris Rašeta, who describes Margetić as “a storyteller of fairy tales for adults,” while writer Ivica Đikić calls him “an unreliable and untrustworthy source” and a conspiracy theorist.
Martens then discusses some of the claims made in Margetić’s book, which he considers products of an exceptionally vivid imagination.
The book alleges that a European king travelled to Sarajevo to kill children and rape women, relying on testimony from an unnamed logistics officer identified only as Dragan. According to the book, the king also sexually assaulted young women who later disappeared.
Martens points out that virtually every identifiable source cited by Margetić is deceased, while only anonymous sources remain alive.
He also notes that former Croatian Prime Minister Josip Manolić allegedly shared the entire “Sarajevo Safari” story with Margetić but never mentioned it in his extensive memoirs.
Martens concludes that although Margetić understands the region better than Gavazzeni, he nevertheless attempts to reinforce the same narrative.
“In the end, there is nothing illegal about making bad films or writing bad books. What is worrying is journalism that accepts such works without serious critical examination simply because they fit a preferred narrative. Perhaps human hunting in Sarajevo did occur. However, that cannot be concluded from the sources that are repeatedly cited,” Martens writes in the final paragraph of the FAZ article.
Source: Klix
