Maybe, but one who knows the case, also notices that the verdict is actually a copy - paste of the prosecutor's speech. For example. Gotovina is accused that he shelled Knin with too much power and destroyed a large portion of buildings. First of all, the Croatian army suffered from a lack of ammo, from the beginning to the end of the conflict, so there was no spare ammo for useless goals. Plus, witnesses report that only 1 building was directly hit, and that only a small number of others was damaged. Second of all, such orders were never given. That was also proven but the judge disregarded it.
Then you have the count of persecution. The Serb leaders organized the evacuation of the Serbian people long before the operation started, they even knew about it for 1 year before it was put in action. Croatian forces encountered them, the marching lines of both civilians and soldiers evacuating into Bosnia, but never fired upon them, because #1 general shortage of ammo, and #2 the army was strictly ordered not to fire at the Serbs.
In the end, the verdict is based only on the Brijuni meeting transcripts, and the generals are only accused of being part of a criminal act, and not a legal military operation which it was. Kinda undermines the whole concept of the country if you see that it's the operation that marked the end of the war.
