The armed conflict between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1994) continues to be a contested field in both historiography and political discourse. Central to understanding this conflict are the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which provide detailed accounts of the involvement of the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) in shaping the course and character of the war. The Prlić et al. verdict of November 2017, along with six other final ICTY judgments, provides a detailed legal account of Croatia’s involvement in the international character of the conflict. While all seven judgments confirm the participation of Croatian forces, it is the Prlić et al. case that specifically establishes the existence of a joint criminal enterprise involving Croatian political and military leadership.

This presentation adopts a historiographical perspective on these judgments, examining how Croatia’s political elite has engaged with ICTY findings. Through analysis of official statements and parliamentary debates, it traces patterns in the domestic reception of international legal narratives and explores how these responses intersect with broader national historical interpretations. The discussion emphasizes the ways in which legal documentation interacts with political discourse and collective memory, shaping the production and dissemination of historical narratives. By situating ICTY judgments within the context of domestic political reactions, the presentation highlights methodological and interpretive challenges for historians studying politically mediated narratives. It aims to provide insight into how law and politics intersect in the construction of historical knowledge, and how international legal judgments can inform, complicate, or reshape national historiography.