Cermak Lacked Control Over Police, Court Hears
Defence witness tells tribunal that former Croatian general only had administrative role.
Cermak Lacked Control Over Police, Court Hears
Defence witness tells tribunal that former Croatian general only had administrative role.
Former Croatian army general Ivan Cermak did not have direct authority to conduct or supervise the activities of civilian police as commander of the Knin Garrison, a defence witness told the Hague tribunal this week.
Christopher Albiston, a former police commander, said Cermak was not in a position to discipline civilian police. He was addressing prosecution claims that Cermak should have prevented crimes during and after the Croatian military offensive of Operation Storm.
Cermak is accused, along with generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, of responsibility for crimes committed against Serb civilians during and after Operation Storm, aimed at retaking the Serb-held Krajina region in August 1995.
Cermak was appointed to the Knin Garrison by then-president Franjo Tudjman, and according to the indictment was charged with maintaining order within the Croatian army, HV, units operating in the garrison, as well as civilian police.
According to the prosecution, troops under the generals’ leadership committed looting and arson during and after Operation Storm.
The indictment charges Cermak with permitting and denying ongoing criminal activity during Operation Storm, failing to establish order among his subordinates, and providing false assurances to the international community that actions to stop such crimes were being taken.
Based on his examination of documents provided by the defence team, including witness testimonies, Albiston concluded that Cermak in fact had no authority over any “subordinates” in the civilian police.
Albiston was assigned as police commissioner for the United Nations mission in Kosovo in 2001, after 28 years of working as a police officer and commander in the United Kingdom.
Albiston was instructed by the defence team to offer his opinion on Cermak’s criminal liability in relation to the issues laid out in the indictment, Albiston told the judges.
One of his earliest findings among the “thousands” of documents he examined, Albiston said, was the breadth of command exercised by Cermak in managing the Knin Garrison.
“The garrison unit… was, in terms of numerical strength, very small,” Albiston told the judges, without specifying the unit’s exact size. “The function he was exercising was an administrative function rather than an operational command.”
Gillian Higgins, defence prosecutor for Cermak, asked Albiston whether he thought a garrison commander has any command or control over civilian police.
“It was clear from the documents that the function of the garrison commander is a military function,” Albiston said. “[The documents] are quite clear in providing a role for the garrison commander in relation to cooperation and coordination with the civilian police, not command or control over the civilian police.”
Higgins asked Albiston to define the two sets of responsibilities.
“For the police, command and control indicates a responsibility, so that command is a function of an individual who gives orders, directions, sets policy, provides leadership, and expects in return that those orders are followed and obeyed,” Albiston told the judges.
Cooperation implied different groups coming together for a common purpose, Albiston told the judges, while coordination was important for military and policing purposes to properly establish different areas of responsibility.
Albiston told the judges that in addition to examining civilian police documents for his report, he also studied internal documents from the Croatian ministry of the interior, MUP.
“There is no mention of the garrison commander in any of these [MUP] and civilian policing structures,” Albiston said. “There is no mention of General Cermak.”
Higgins referenced a document cited by Albiston in his report, in which senior police coordinator Marijan Tomurad requested civilian police representatives to be present at meetings with General Cermak, which were ultimately held on a daily basis.
“To me, the significance is that if Cermak, as garrison commander, featured in any way in the MUP or civilian policing hierarchy, surely there would be no need to ask for civilian police officers to be present in meetings that he chaired,” Albiston told the judges.
If Cermak had control over the civilian police, Albiston added, he would expect to see his name on orders to civilian police, transfers or appointments of senior police officers, and any reports going up the MUP chain of command. He saw no evidence of this in the documents provided, Albiston said.
Albiston cited a work order, dated August 3, 1995, between the civilian and military police. It stressed the importance of cooperation between the ministry of defence and the military police, Albiston said, as well as MUP and civilian police, in order to achieve the maintenance of law and order after Operation Storm.
“Whilst in many aspects [Cermak] was regarded as a focal point for cooperation and coordination, looking at the detail of operational responsibility, there was no locus for Cermak” in the work order regarding Operation Storm, Albiston said.
Cermak did not have a role in such operational matters, he added.
Higgins cited several documents from August 1995 written by Josko Moric, in the ministry of internal affairs, to the police administration. Moric’s letters request roadblocks as well as cooperation with military police in order to avoid any future torching of houses and illegal removal of moveable property from its rightful owners in liberated territories in the aftermath of Operation Storm.
Higgins asked Albiston if he believed Cermak had a legal responsibility to prevent such crimes, or punish the civilian police for their actions.
“There is no role for the garrison commander in relation to the civilian police and any criminal offences they may have committed,” Albiston told the judges, adding that Cermak had no statutory authority to conduct or supervise any criminal investigations through the military or civilian police.
In her cross-examination of the witness, prosecutor Katrina Gustafson asked whether Albiston had looked at any potential sources of Cermak’s authority over the civilian police, outside of his examination of MUP documents.
“I looked at documents related to what the authority of garrison commander was in military terms, looking specifically at the impact or locus on civilian policing,” Albiston said.
“Do you recall seeing any evidence of the garrison commander having authority in related HV or MUP documents?” Gustafson asked.
Albiston told the judges that he did not recall seeing such evidence.
“In relation to civilian police aspects, I did not examine any additional authorities because the authorities in relation to civilian policing seem quite clear,” Albiston added.
The trial continues next week.
Julia Hawes is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
Christopher Albiston, a former police commander, said Cermak was not in a position to discipline civilian police. He was addressing prosecution claims that Cermak should have prevented crimes during and after the Croatian military offensive of Operation Storm.
Cermak is accused, along with generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, of responsibility for crimes committed against Serb civilians during and after Operation Storm, aimed at retaking the Serb-held Krajina region in August 1995.
Cermak was appointed to the Knin Garrison by then-president Franjo Tudjman, and according to the indictment was charged with maintaining order within the Croatian army, HV, units operating in the garrison, as well as civilian police.
According to the prosecution, troops under the generals’ leadership committed looting and arson during and after Operation Storm.
The indictment charges Cermak with permitting and denying ongoing criminal activity during Operation Storm, failing to establish order among his subordinates, and providing false assurances to the international community that actions to stop such crimes were being taken.
Based on his examination of documents provided by the defence team, including witness testimonies, Albiston concluded that Cermak in fact had no authority over any “subordinates” in the civilian police.
Albiston was assigned as police commissioner for the United Nations mission in Kosovo in 2001, after 28 years of working as a police officer and commander in the United Kingdom.
Albiston was instructed by the defence team to offer his opinion on Cermak’s criminal liability in relation to the issues laid out in the indictment, Albiston told the judges.
One of his earliest findings among the “thousands” of documents he examined, Albiston said, was the breadth of command exercised by Cermak in managing the Knin Garrison.
“The garrison unit… was, in terms of numerical strength, very small,” Albiston told the judges, without specifying the unit’s exact size. “The function he was exercising was an administrative function rather than an operational command.”
Gillian Higgins, defence prosecutor for Cermak, asked Albiston whether he thought a garrison commander has any command or control over civilian police.
“It was clear from the documents that the function of the garrison commander is a military function,” Albiston said. “[The documents] are quite clear in providing a role for the garrison commander in relation to cooperation and coordination with the civilian police, not command or control over the civilian police.”
Higgins asked Albiston to define the two sets of responsibilities.
“For the police, command and control indicates a responsibility, so that command is a function of an individual who gives orders, directions, sets policy, provides leadership, and expects in return that those orders are followed and obeyed,” Albiston told the judges.
Cooperation implied different groups coming together for a common purpose, Albiston told the judges, while coordination was important for military and policing purposes to properly establish different areas of responsibility.
Albiston told the judges that in addition to examining civilian police documents for his report, he also studied internal documents from the Croatian ministry of the interior, MUP.
“There is no mention of the garrison commander in any of these [MUP] and civilian policing structures,” Albiston said. “There is no mention of General Cermak.”
Higgins referenced a document cited by Albiston in his report, in which senior police coordinator Marijan Tomurad requested civilian police representatives to be present at meetings with General Cermak, which were ultimately held on a daily basis.
“To me, the significance is that if Cermak, as garrison commander, featured in any way in the MUP or civilian policing hierarchy, surely there would be no need to ask for civilian police officers to be present in meetings that he chaired,” Albiston told the judges.
If Cermak had control over the civilian police, Albiston added, he would expect to see his name on orders to civilian police, transfers or appointments of senior police officers, and any reports going up the MUP chain of command. He saw no evidence of this in the documents provided, Albiston said.
Albiston cited a work order, dated August 3, 1995, between the civilian and military police. It stressed the importance of cooperation between the ministry of defence and the military police, Albiston said, as well as MUP and civilian police, in order to achieve the maintenance of law and order after Operation Storm.
“Whilst in many aspects [Cermak] was regarded as a focal point for cooperation and coordination, looking at the detail of operational responsibility, there was no locus for Cermak” in the work order regarding Operation Storm, Albiston said.
Cermak did not have a role in such operational matters, he added.
Higgins cited several documents from August 1995 written by Josko Moric, in the ministry of internal affairs, to the police administration. Moric’s letters request roadblocks as well as cooperation with military police in order to avoid any future torching of houses and illegal removal of moveable property from its rightful owners in liberated territories in the aftermath of Operation Storm.
Higgins asked Albiston if he believed Cermak had a legal responsibility to prevent such crimes, or punish the civilian police for their actions.
“There is no role for the garrison commander in relation to the civilian police and any criminal offences they may have committed,” Albiston told the judges, adding that Cermak had no statutory authority to conduct or supervise any criminal investigations through the military or civilian police.
In her cross-examination of the witness, prosecutor Katrina Gustafson asked whether Albiston had looked at any potential sources of Cermak’s authority over the civilian police, outside of his examination of MUP documents.
“I looked at documents related to what the authority of garrison commander was in military terms, looking specifically at the impact or locus on civilian policing,” Albiston said.
“Do you recall seeing any evidence of the garrison commander having authority in related HV or MUP documents?” Gustafson asked.
Albiston told the judges that he did not recall seeing such evidence.
“In relation to civilian police aspects, I did not examine any additional authorities because the authorities in relation to civilian policing seem quite clear,” Albiston added.
The trial continues next week.
Julia Hawes is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
