Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39243reflected in an order by the Minister of Defence (D35) and orders by the Chief of theVP Administration (P2171, P881, D47). A number of witnesses, including members ofthe VP, also confirmed this system. The Gotovina Defence submits in paragraph 800 ofits Final Trial Brief that a reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that the VP unitswere not subordinated to the military commander for VP tasks, but for military tasks ofthe military commander. The wording of the VP Rules is inconsistent with thisexplanation. The same is true for Milas’s explanation of the system of Articles 8 and 9of the VP Rules. Milas testified that the system of VP command and control was one ofvertical subordination and horizontal coordination, meaning that the VP Administrationwas vertically superior and that VP units would be duty-bound to horizontallycoordinate with the military commander in their areas of responsibility. Accordingly,the Trial Chamber finds that Gotovina, by virtue of his function, had authority over VPunits in the area of operations of the Split MD under Article 9 of the VP Rules.146. In relation to the scope of Gotovina’s authority, the Trial Chamber had tointerpret Article 9 of the VP Rules. In this context, it also considered the way in whichwitnesses interpreted this rule. Article 9 subordinates VP units to a military commanderin the performance of regular VP tasks. Article 10 of the VP Rules lists VP tasks,including the prevention and processing of crimes. The Gotovina Defence submits thatpreventing and investigating crimes did not fall within the ambit of Article 9, as regularVP tasks. Botteri and Milas testified that crime prevention and processing did not fallwithin the competence of a military commander under Article 9, although Botteriqualified these tasks as “basic tasks”. Šimić testified that an MD commander also hadthe power to order the VP in relation to crime investigations. The Trial Chamber furtherconsidered exhibits P1013 and P1019 which illustrate Gotovina’s powers in using hisauthority over the VP in relation to initiating crime investigations and crime processing.Apart from setting up commissions to investigate certain offences, Gotovina alsoordered that VP members be part of such commissions. Different elements of a taskcould reasonably fall within the ambit of either Article 8 or 9 of the VP Rules. Forexample, providing logistical or organizational aspects of a crime investigation wouldbe covered by Article 8 of the VP Rules, whereas the initiation of behaviour to beinvestigated may fall within the ambit of Article 9 of the VP Rules. Accordingly, theTrial Chamber finds that crime prevention and processing, depending on the72Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `