Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

39230and hence he was not a garrison commander in the classical sense. 540 Čermak also statedthat he was part of the military organization as far as his logistical tasks wereconcerned. 541 Čermak stated that he had executive powers in logistical and technicalmatters, and that he was the only military authority in Knin for logistical matters. 542165. The Trial Chamber finally turns to the end of Čermak’s term. When interviewedby the Prosecution, Čermak stated that he remained Commander of the Knin GarrisonHeadquarters until sometime in or around the end of October 1995, when the civilianauthorities had started working and it was decided between President Tuñman, Šarinić,and Čermak that he was no longer needed in Knin. 543 Towards the end, Čermak wasmostly dealing with contacts with the international community, delegations, and minorlogistical issues. 544 Marko Gojević acceded to Čermak’s position when he left. 545Čermak stayed in Knin for some time after leaving his position, but had gone to Zagrebby mid-November 1995. 546 According to Al-Alfi, Čermak left the Knin area by the endof September or beginning of October 1995, following the Varivode events. 547166. Based on the evidence above, the Trial Chamber finds that the formalappointment and title of Čermak was Commander of the Knin Garrison. The TrialChamber further finds Čermak held this position from 5 August 1995, prior to hisarrival in Knin on 6 August 1995, and until the end of the Indictment period. Titles suchas “military governor” with which some witnesses addressed or associated Čermak donot have a solid basis. However, the Trial Chamber notes the evidence of Radin, Škare-Ožbolt and the Čermak interviews indicating that Tuñman bestowed upon Čermakresponsibilities beyond those normally attached to a garrison commander. Thisevidence, in particular that of Radin, further indicates that the garrison commander titlewas chosen in order to provide some sort of formal legal basis for the position thatTuñman wanted Čermak to hold. The Trial Chamber therefore finds that Čermak’s540 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 26-27, 115, 128-129, 136-138, 141-142; P2532 (Accused interview with Ivan Čermak, 7 June 2004), pp. 1, 10-11, 57-59.541 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 28, 116.542 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 13, 24, 116.543 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 36-37, 68-69, 185; P2526 (Suspectinterview with Ivan Čermak, 17 March 1998), pp. 12-13, 101.544 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), p. 36.545 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 37, 135, 185; P2526 (Suspectinterview with Ivan Čermak, 17 March 1998), pp. 13, 108.546 P2525 (Suspect interview with Ivan Čermak, 13 March 2001), pp. 68-69.547 P1160 (Hussein Al-Alfi, witness statement, 5 March 1998), pp. 51, 70; Hussein Al-Alfi, T. 13866;P1169 (UN Sector South report, by Hussein Al-Alfi, 3 October 1995), p. 3. See also P166 (UNMO SectorSouth daily situation report, 8 p.m., 5 October 1995), pp. 5-6.85Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `