We can reasonably assume that, based on the difference in the organizational and power-base structure between these two.
But, realistically speaking, do you honestly know that Miloshevich knew and had direct control over each and every move of each and every company commander and/or Serb unit in both theaters of operations? I find that difficult to believe, as much as I find it difficult to believe that Gen. Westmoreland, let alone President Johnson, had similar knowledge and control over all and every unit and commander in the field.
That doesn't mean he didn't; it's just highly unlikely. I could be wrong of course.
What I am hinting at are two different approaches to command repsonsability:
(a) Ignorance of the law does not absolve a person of responsability. By the same token, in the spirit of the principle of holding commanders responsable for the actions of their subordinates, a chain of command in its entirety is included. In other words, it really doesn't matter how how far up the pinnacle of command/power an incident goes, does it? If the principle of ultimate negligence falls on the highest office holders, than it should not matter if the people in charge had knowledge and or control of every subordinate's action, right?
A perfect example of this would bw the ill-fated Tailhook incident involving Naval aviators, and all the heads that rolled.
(b) On the other hand, if the responsability is extended only to those who had immediate and direct knowledge of the acitivities (as in the case of My Lai), then Miloshevich's trial is flawed (unless the judges can produce hard evidence showing direct orders coming from Miloshevich himself to commit crimes, or covering up knolwegde of them) just as it may seem wrong to you that Gen. Westmoreland or President Johnson should have been put on trial for the war crimes committed by their troops.
Again, this is not comparing the righetousness or evil on either side, just the principle involved that a crime is a crime is a crime, regardless who commits it.
It seems to me that the distinction in the case of Miloshevich and Serbs in general is unprincipled and politically motivated. This is precisely the type of proceedings that brought about complete opposition of the United States to the world court.