Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

cpi.hr
12.07.2015 Views

39215determined by the police administration’s disciplinary committee. 672 Disciplinary actionof the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit would be dealt with by a disciplinary committeecommon to the whole MUP, which according to Janić was also called Inner Control. 673Markač stated that he would forward cases from the unit commander to this disciplinarycommittee of the MUP. 674189. Turkalj testified that there was a practice in place that all major matters wouldbe reported in writing by the unit commanders to Markač who in turn would decide howthe matter was to be resolved. 675 However, the witness testified that Markač could notinitiate this process if he did not have the initial request from a unit commander. 676 Forminor breaches of discipline, unit commanders were obligated to deal with the mattersthemselves. 677 Turkalj added that crimes committed by a member of the Special Policewould be forwarded by Markač to the criminal police for further investigation. 678 Onlythe criminal police could carry out such investigations, not the unit or the Special Policeitself. 679190. Joško Morić, who in 1995 was Assistant Minister of the Interior in charge ofregular police, 680 testified that the Special Police fell under the jurisdiction ofDisciplinary Courts. 681 Morić believed that the Inner Control of the Special Police hadthe role of gathering and processing information about discipline in the various SpecialPolice units. 682 According to Morić, they did not deal with disciplinary proceedings. 683According to Morić, Markač and the others in the management of the Special Police672 P2530 (Suspect interview with Markač, 3-4 March 2003), p. 120.673 P2530 (Suspect interview with Markač, 3-4 March 2003), p. 120; P552 (Zdravko Janić, witnessstatement, 14 January 2004), para. 14; P553 (Zdravko Janić, Prosecution interview, 15 March 2005), partI, pp. 26-28; Zdravko Janić, T. 6245.674 P2530 (Suspect interview with Markač, 3-4 March 2003), p. 120; P2531 (Accused interview withMarkač, 8 June 2004), p. 56.675 P1149 (Josip Turkalj, witness statement, 4 February 2004), para. 69; P1150 (Josip Turkalj, witnessinterview of 11 March 2005), pp. 46-48; Josip Turkalj, T. 13616-13617; P1155 (Proposal by Markač forlaunching disciplinary proceedings against Lučko unit member Davor Kovačev, 7 July 1995).676 Josip Turkalj, T. 13617.677 Josip Turkalj, T. 13616. See also Zoran Cvrk, T. 25349, 25352, 25360-25361, 25402; D1835 (Criteriaon charging a penalty to Special Police members for violation of work discipline, 24 July 1992), pp 1-2.678 P1149 (Josip Turkalj, witness statement, 4 February 2004), para. 69; Josip Turkalj, T. 13624.679 P1152 (Josip Turkalj, third witness interview of 11 March 2005), pp. 36-37, 39-41; Josip Turkalj, T.13682. See also Josip Čelić, T. 8079-8080.680D1841 (Joško Morić, witness statement, 15 May 2009), p. 1, paras 1-2; D1842 (Joško Morić, witnessinterview, 17 January 2004), pp. 1-10, 13, 25, 110, 119; Joško Morić, T. 25502-25505, 25508-25511,25514-25515, 25523, 25528, 25640, 25785, 25806, 25842, 25926-25927.681 D1842 (Joško Morić, witness interview, 17 January 2004), pp. 130-131.682 D1842 (Joško Morić, witness interview, 17 January 2004), pp. 131, 134, 136; Joško Morić, T. 25790,25914-25917.683 Joško Morić, T. 25790.100Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

39214were duty-bound to forward information in their possession of crimes or breaches ofdiscipline to the chief of the police administration to which the suspect belonged. 684However, Morić did not think that the Special Police was tasked, trained or equipped todo crime investigation. 685 Cetina testified that he could not request disciplinaryprocedures against Special Police members, but that the Chief of the Special PoliceSector could. 686191. Ivan Galović, District Public Prosecutor in Zadar since 1990, 687 testified that upuntil the time that the District Public Prosecutor’s jurisdiction changed in September1997, he did not receive a single report against members of the Special Police in his roleas Public Prosecutor. 688 According to Galović, had a member of the Special Policecommitted a crime it would have been dealt with by the appropriate County orMunicipal Prosecutor’s Office. 689192. Zoran Cvrk, who was commander of the Special Unit of the Zagreb PoliceAdministration from May 1993 to February 2000 and was commander of the SpecialPolice’s 4th auxiliary axis of operation during Operation Storm, 690 testified that allmembers of the MUP, including the Special Police, were subject to the MUP Rules onDisciplinary Infractions, a set of disciplinary rules that clearly specified whichdisciplinary violations were major and minor. 691 The commanders of Special Policeunits attached to individual police administrations had the responsibility, delegated bythe police administration commander, to respond to major infringements and suspectedcriminal activity by commencing disciplinary proceedings before their policeadministration’s independent disciplinary court in accordance with the MUPdisciplinary rules. 692 This responsibility applied even if the major infringement occurredoutside of the police administration, such as during MUP or joint-force operations at thenational level. 693 Special Police members accused of misdemeanours or other crimes684 Joško Morić, T. 25794-25799.685 Joško Morić, T. 25799-25800.686 Ivica Cetina, T. 23592-23593.687 D1553 (Ivan Galović, witness statement, 18 May 2009), pp. 1-2, 5; Ivan Galović, T. 19666-19669.688 Ivan Galović, T. 19732.689 Ivan Galović, T. 19734.690 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), p. 1, paras 1, 17; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25331-25332,25367-25369, 25422, 25427, 25466.691 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), para. 9; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25349, 25402, 25406,25414.692 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), paras 9-11; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25349-25350,25352-25354, 25402, 25422.693 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), para. 10.101Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

39214were duty-bound to forward information in their possession of crimes or breaches ofdiscipline to the chief of the police administration to which the suspect belonged. 684However, Morić did not think that the Speci<strong>al</strong> Police was tasked, trained or equipped todo crime investigation. 685 C<strong>et</strong>ina testified that he could not request disciplinaryprocedures against Speci<strong>al</strong> Police members, but that the Chief of the Speci<strong>al</strong> PoliceSector could. 686191. Ivan G<strong>al</strong>ović, District Public Prosecutor in Zadar since 1990, 687 testified that upuntil the time that the District Public Prosecutor’s jurisdiction changed in September1997, he did not receive a single report against members of the Speci<strong>al</strong> Police in his roleas Public Prosecutor. 688 According to G<strong>al</strong>ović, had a member of the Speci<strong>al</strong> Policecommitted a crime it would have been de<strong>al</strong>t with by the appropriate County orMunicip<strong>al</strong> Prosecutor’s Office. 689192. Zoran Cvrk, who was commander of the Speci<strong>al</strong> Unit of the Zagreb PoliceAdministration from May 1993 to February 2000 and was commander of the Speci<strong>al</strong>Police’s 4th auxiliary axis of operation during Operation Storm, 690 testified that <strong>al</strong>lmembers of the MUP, including the Speci<strong>al</strong> Police, were subject to the MUP Rules onDisciplinary Infractions, a s<strong>et</strong> of disciplinary rules that clearly specified whichdisciplinary violations were major and minor. 691 The commanders of Speci<strong>al</strong> Policeunits attached to individu<strong>al</strong> police administrations had the responsibility, delegated bythe police administration commander, to respond to major infringements and suspectedcrimin<strong>al</strong> activity by commencing disciplinary proceedings before their policeadministration’s independent disciplinary court in accordance with the MUPdisciplinary rules. 692 This responsibility applied even if the major infringement occurredoutside of the police administration, such as during MUP or joint-force operations at thenation<strong>al</strong> level. 693 Speci<strong>al</strong> Police members accused of misdemeanours or other crimes684 Joško Morić, T. 25794-25799.685 Joško Morić, T. 25799-25800.686 Ivica C<strong>et</strong>ina, T. 23592-23593.687 D1553 (Ivan G<strong>al</strong>ović, witness statement, 18 May 2009), pp. 1-2, 5; Ivan G<strong>al</strong>ović, T. 19666-19669.688 Ivan G<strong>al</strong>ović, T. 19732.689 Ivan G<strong>al</strong>ović, T. 19734.690 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), p. 1, paras 1, 17; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25331-25332,25367-25369, 25422, 25427, 25466.691 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), para. 9; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25349, 25402, 25406,25414.692 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), paras 9-11; Zoran Cvrk, T. 25349-25350,25352-25354, 25402, 25422.693 D1833 (Zoran Cvrk, witness statement, 13 May 2009), para. 10.101Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!