Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39244in the area of responsibility of the Split MD, and was obliged to take all necessaryactions under military regulations to ensure discipline in subordinated units. He furtherinformed Gotovina that such behaviour reflected poorly on the HV, was contrary tostate policy and the views of Croatian leaders, and violated Croatia’s internationalobligations. He added that he would take vigorous and strict measures against all HVcommanders who behaved in an undisciplined way or contrary to orders. 418143. The Trial Chamber is mindful that while on the one hand, members of the VPwere duty-bound to combat crimes committed by the military, on the other hand theywere allegedly involved in committing crimes themselves.144. In relation to Gotovina’s powers vis-à-vis crimes and disciplinary infractionscommitted by units under his command, the Trial Chamber finds that upon learning of acrime or disciplinary infraction, like any other military commander, Gotovina had thepower to initiate relevant proceedings, resulting in the involvement of either the VP andthe military prosecutor (crimes) or the disciplinary prosecutor (major disciplinaryinfractions), or sanction the perpetrator directly (minor disciplinary infractions).Moreover, Gotovina by virtue of his position could also perform regular evaluations ofdecisions on disciplinary measures taken by subordinated commanders and thusperforming his duties as their commander. In relation to non-organic units temporarilyattached to the Split MD, the Trial Chamber acknowledges that there may have beenconfusion or inconsistency about whether the commander of the Split MD or theoriginal unit commander would exercise disciplinary control. In any event, the TrialChamber is satisfied that in order to give effect to the subordination, the Split MDcommander had at least the power to initiate or review temporary disciplinary measures.Based on D1538 and other evidence received, the Trial Chamber further considers thatgeographical absence of the Split MD commander from areas of the Split MD wherecombat operations did not require his presence any further does not per se affect hisobligation to retain control over subordinated units still in those areas.145. In relation to Gotovina’s authority over VP units, the Trial Chamber finds thatthe VP Rules of 1994 (Exhibit P880), which were in force throughout 1995, establisheda system of command and control whereby VP units would be subordinate to a militarycommander for performance of regular VP tasks, under Article 9. This system was also417 Mladen Bajić, T. 20735-20736, 20831-20832.418 D1538 (Letter from General Červenko to Gotovina, 12 September 1995).71Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `