Tismăneanu himself referred to criticism of the "Final Report" from the part of several members of the Institute of the Romanian Revolution, noting that their reply, published in a special issue of the body's official journal, was prefaced by Ion Iliescu, and inferring a common political agenda. In July 2007, "Cotidianul" reporter Mirela Corlățan reviewed and supported accusations of censorship and pro-Iliescu bias inside the Institute, quoting Tismăneanu and other scholars critical of the body's policies. Corlățan's article cited historian Miodrag Millin, a resigned member of the Institute, who deemed the reply: "a state-sponsored 'clog' forced on the condemnation of communism, without any the Institute members taking responsibility for those opinions." Millin added: "It is an institution born into old age, with no synchronization to reality, led by Ion Iliescu and his cronies." Other local academic reactions, Cristian Vasile claims, were mostly motivated by covert sympathies for communist historiography among the "spiritually aged professors"; Vasile cites one academic's comment that Tismăneanu was an unprofessional and "one of the communist regime's profiteers", calling the statement "venomous" and presuming it to display "repulsion and envy". He also identifies such historians as persons whose careers were shaped in the final decades of communism, under the influence of Protochronism and other nationalist historiographic interpretations favored by Ilie Ceaușescu, a Romanian Army general and brother of Nicolae.