Cermak's Right to Issue Orders Questioned

An expert military witness told Hague tribunal judges in the case of former Croatian army, HV, general Ivan Cermak that the accused “didn’t understand how little authority he had” as commander of the Knin Garrison after the military offensive of Operation Storm.



Giving final testimony before the defence team rested its case, former British army general Jack Deverell said that Cermak had been appointed by then president Franjo Tudjman in order to act as commander, facilitate the normalisation of Knin, and serve as a contact for international organisations in Croatia.



However, Deverell said there was confusion over Cermak’s specific responsibilities and authority, due to a lack of communication between Tudjman, the military and civilian police and Cermak himself.



“He didn’t understand the limits of his authority,” Deverell told the judges.



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 charged with maintaining order within the HV units operating in the garrison, as well as civilian police in his role as garrison commander, the indictment states.



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 by his subordinates during Operation Storm, as well as providing false assurances to the international community that action to stop such crimes was being taken.



Deverell repeatedly told judges this week that Cermak had “no part of the decision making process” in maintaining order over the civilian and military police during and following Operation Storm. Deverell said that Cermak “didn’t realise how little authority he had” beyond the basic tasks of coordination and cooperation as garrison commander.



One of Cermak’s defence lawyers, Andrew Cayley, referred to Deverell’s report in which he described orders Cermak had issued for military and civilian police to set up teams to find stolen vehicles belonging to the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation, UNCRO.



But Cermak had “no authority” to issue such an order to the military or civilian police, according to Deverell. Cermak ultimately contacted Gotovina, who was able to order his subordinate units to return the stolen property, Deverell wrote in his report.



The witness said that the UNCRO vehicle incident served as evidence that Cermak was “beginning to learn that this is the way he should have done things”. Cermak seemed to be furthering his understanding of the chain of command and the principles of subordination, Deverell told the judges.



Deverell told the prosecution that at the time of this order Cermak had been the Knin commander for two or three days.



“[Cermak] was a man that was given no preparation time, and came from a completely different background,” Deverell said, adding that Cermak had worked in commercial and political professions, as opposed to military. “My judgement is that you see him here attempting to meet demands that were being imposed upon him by the UN. He did it in the best way possible.”



Gregory Kehoe, from Gotovina’s defence team, referred to a series of orders Gotovina had issued, placing subordinate commanders on notice to stop undisciplined activity after Operation Storm. Kehoe asked whether Deverell got the sense that soldiers were trying to stop undisciplined activities.



Deverell said that he did, but added that Gotovina and Cermak only had a coordination relationship with the military police over “regular police tasks”, which did not include investigations into crimes committed by soldiers during and after Operation Storm.



Kehoe cited orders in which HV units were ordered to carry out “mop-up operations” to ensure safety after the military offensive. Kehoe said the documents seemed “out of context” in Deverell’s report, as Gotovina and the Split military district forces were not involved in these operations.



“My point was to demonstrate that there was a great deal of activity going on in that period in terms of planning… the normalisation of the area that had been, if I may use the word, liberated,” Deverell told the judges. “Cermak did not seem part of the information or action. There was no requirement for his action because he was not sent a majority of those documents, if any of them.”



Deverell also noted a lack of contact between Gotovina and Cermak in the aftermath of Operation Storm. Apart from Cermak’s request to Gotovina to uncover the UNCRO vehicles, Deverell found no documents sent by either of the men to one another that referred to the looting, burning, and murders allegedly taking place in the aftermath of Operation Storm, nor to the normalisation of life in Knin.



Kehoe cited Deverell’s report on an incident when he said that Gotovina had added to the confusion over Cermak’s responsibilities and title by referring to him as the “Military Governor” in a meeting with the military police.



“This whole thing was an unwitting misunderstanding,” Deverell told the judges, adding that Gotovina’s statement was “not a deliberate attempt to mislead anybody”.



In the cross-examination, the Office of the Prosecution, OTP, cited an order issued by Cermak on August 11, 1995, that temporarily assigned seven members of the 142 Homeguard Regiment to the Knin Garrison.



“[Cermak] had no authority to assign those men to be attached to his headquarters,” Deverell told the judges. He had found no proof that the soldiers had actually arrived in Knin and carried out Cermak’s orders.



Deverell added that it would be “foolish” to paint a picture that Cermak was not under some pressure to impress subordinates with his “apparent authority”.



“We all know that Cermak was a successful businessman,” Deverell said. “Here is a man who was put into this post [that] he didn’t understand. He thought his task was urban regeneration. He did what many people would do – he took on responsibilities to himself that he didn’t have. He did it for the best possible motives – he did it to be helpful.”



The prosecution asked if a crime committed by a soldier, such as during Operation Storm, would fall under the scope of an officer, regardless of whether that soldier fell under the officer’s command.



“If it becomes apparent that something has been done wrong, whether it’s a trivial disciplinary effect, he actually has to take some action to ensure that the alleged incident is dealt with, is investigated,” Deverell said.



Deverell said that a “failure to discipline breaches of military discipline will normally lead to a reduction in standards of discipline”.



The prosecution asked what the impact of failure to discipline against crimes committed by soldiers would have on a unit.



“The absence of legal action against one soldier may not have any effect,” Deverell said. “If it’s a common trend that commanders do not impose sanctions on those soldiers that commit these offences… of course it can lead to a further breakdown.”



The defence team of Mladen Markac begins its case next week.



Julia Hawes is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.