Ex-Police Officer "Unaware" of Srebrenica Reports
Defence witness declines to answer why his department did not investigate journalist’s massacre claims.
Ex-Police Officer "Unaware" of Srebrenica Reports
Defence witness declines to answer why his department did not investigate journalist’s massacre claims.
A former high-ranking Bosnian Serb police official this week denied having any knowledge of the arrest of an American journalist who was caught photographing execution sites near Srebrenica in 1995.
Defence witness Milenko Karisik, the chief of public security in the Bosnian Serb interior ministry during the war, was testifying on behalf of wartime Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic at the Hague tribunal.
Karadzic, the president of the self-declared Republika Srpska, from 1992 to 1996, is accused of planning and overseeing the massacre of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys after the eastern town of Srebrenica fell to his forces in July 1995.
The indictment – which lists 11 counts in total - alleges that he was responsible for crimes of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder and forcible transfer which “contributed to achieving the objective of the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory".
In a witness statement submitted in lieu of testimony, Karisik claims that “no one informed [him] that any crimes had been committed against the Muslims in Srebrenica. There were no plans to expel civilians forcibly from Srebrenica or plans to capture and liquidate members of the 28th Muslim division” of the Bosnian government army.
Furthermore, Karisik stated, he “never received any kind of order directly from Radovan Karadzic”.
During cross-examination, prosecuting lawyer Julian Nicholls asked Karisik about the journalist David Rohde, who on August 18, 1995 published an article in the Christian Science Monitor newspaper headlined, “Evidence indicates Bosnia massacre: Eyewitness reports support charges by the US of killings.”
“You wouldn’t have seen or known about this article because you didn’t hear about any crimes committed against Bosnian Muslim prisoners until after the war was over, right?” Nicholls asked.
“That’s correct,” the witness replied.
Rohde’s own account, set out in his 1997 book Endgame, says he entered Bosnian Serb territory with official permission on August 16, carrying a faxed satellite photo of suspected mass graves. He wrote that he eventually found two empty ammunition boxes and a decomposed human leg, among other items, in the village of Nova Kasaba.
He re-entered Bosnian Serb territory in October 1995, this time without permission, and found two more suspected execution sites. At the first site there were “three canes and a stack of civilian clothes” a short distance from what appeared to be two “freshly dug” mass graves. At the second site, “human bones lay next to an earthen dam”.
Rohde wrote that he was arrested just before taking pictures of the bones. He was subsequently jailed for ten days.
Prosecutor Nicholls produced a Bosnian Serb police report dated October 31, 1995, and read out a passage stating that Rohde had been arrested two days before, that he had “military maps”, and that he had “headed to locations where according to his information, there were mass graves of those killed”.
“What the [interior ministry] is concerned with and focusing on a few months after the fall of Srebrenica is not investigating perpetrators of crimes, [but] investigating a journalist trying to find out what happened, right?” Nicholls asked.
“It is clear from this dispatch that this is information which was sent from the state security department. I would not want to proffer comments; you should ask a witness from the state security department,” Karisik said. “I have not seen this before and I’m reluctant to provide comment on other people’s dispatches.”
“I know it’s not your department, but you’re a very senior officer in the [ministry of interior]. Why is… the only investigation into a journalist trying to take pictures of execution sites?” Nicholls continued.
“Again, I will not comment upon the dispatch because it was sent by the chief of state security… I’m sure the criminal report was filed in accordance with the law on foreigners or some other law concerning journalists,” the witness said. “I’m sure he did something that was contrary to the law.”
“Can you tell me one investigation by [the ministry] in 1995 into any of the crimes committed after the fall of Srebrenica that you as head of public security know about?” Nicholls asked.
“I can’t say for that period after the war when we still didn’t have detailed information. The information we had at that time was weak and insufficient. When it comes to war crimes – the military prosecution, it was in their authority. It was difficult for the ministry of interior to do anything more than that,” Karisnik said.
Nicholls asked the witness whether the “military was supposed to investigate itself”.
“You just leave it to them and don’t worry about it?” he asked.
“We as the ministry of interior learned about those alleged crimes that you mentioned very late, and it seems like some of those crimes did happen. That was in the jurisdiction of the army and military courts. When it comes to crimes committed during [the] military operation, the interior ministry did not have the capacity to open that issue, especially in view of that belated information,” Karisik said.
Nicholls then put to the witness that there had been information “immediately available” that police subordinate to the interior ministry executed 1,000 prisoners on July 13, 1995. He asked why there were no ministry reports on its own involvement in crimes.
“[The ministry] was resubordinated to the army of Republika Srpska during that operation,” the witness replied. “The word ‘resubordination’ means that we were a minor force that participated, but the operation was commanded by the main staff of the army. We were the second-rate force,” Karisik said. “And it is obvious that something happened that was not supposed to happen. When I say it was in the jurisdiction of the military courts, you must understand; it has to be clear what I meant.” continued.
“I’m going to put to you that the reason the [interior ministry] didn’t do any reports on crimes committed by the army or [itself] is because the [ministry] was part of a criminal operation and, just like the army, didn’t investigate itself,” Nicholls said.
“I believe that the question you are putting to me as a witness is something you should ask the minister of interior when he comes to testify,” Karisik replied.
When Karadzic’s legal advisor Peter Robinson then objected to certain documents being entered into evidence, Nicholls retorted that “the highest ranking official in the public security department claims not to have known that only investigation into Srebrenica was part of a cover-up”.
The prosecutor then presented a document which he said was the request to initiate criminal proceedings against Rohde. It stated that “in the area of the red mud dam in Petkovci, [Rohde] shot images of the wider area of the dam with a camera, although it was forbidden”.
“Why does the [ministry] prosecute a journalist instead of following up on his information and trying to find out clues of what happened at [the] red dam? Why weren’t you informed about this in public security and told ‘We’ve got to investigate a possible execution site at the red dam in Petkovci’?” Nicholls asked.
The witness repeated that the dispatch in question was sent by the state security department, not by the public security department of which he was head.
“I’m asking you as a professional – when [the ministry] receives information of a possible execution, why didn’t it go out there and look for shell casings, bone fragments sticking out of ground, Muslim IDs and other types of information, instead of prosecuting the man who told them about it?” Nicholls asked.
The witness again said that the matter concerned the state security department and that “it seems this person violated the law”.
Presiding Judge O-Gon Kwon then asked the witness whether he did not wish to comment because the matter fell within another agency’s remit, or because he did not know anything about it.
The witness said that he had never seen the document before, that he was unaware of it, and that he did not hear about Rohde’s arrest at the time.
Nichols then presented a public statement from November 8, 1995 saying that Karadzic had “made the decision to acquit journalist David Rohde of prosecution” for the crimes of “photographing military and other buildings deep in the territory of the republic”.
“So President Karadzic pardoned, acquitted David Rohde for the crime of taking pictures of the red dam. And you still say you didn’t know about it? As the head of public security?” Nicholls asked.
“No, no, I did not know about this public statement. This was within the purview of the president of Republika Srpska, Mr Karadzic. I have no comment on this document. He acted within the purview of his authority and responsibilities,” Karisik said.
Nicholls then quoted from a press conference on November 15, 1995 given by the witness’s then superior, deputy interior minister Tomo Kovac. One of the questions was about Rohde’s arrest, to which Kovac apparently replied, “Your colleague was performing the most difficult form of espionage, for which the sentence of three to 15 years in prison is foreseen in Republika Srpska in peacetime, so consider it yourselves.”
The prosecutor also quoted Kovac as saying that “we will not and cannot accept people working outside of their journalistic etiquette and openly against my people and this state. Rohde was lucky that negotiations were in process so President Karadzic released him by abolition [of the charges], to avoid pressure on our delegation and Serbs being blamed for everything.”
Nicholls pointed out that the witness’s boss seemed to know all about the situation with Rohde, and once again asked why the only investigation by the interior ministry into Srebrenica in 1995 was the prosecution of a journalist.
The witness repeated that “in principle” he did not want to comment on any interviews.
“The journalist was in breach of law and that’s why he was prosecuted,” he added.
“I’ll put it to you that this is just another example of the [ministry] engaging in a cover-up of crimes,” the prosecutor contended.
Karisik replied, “I don’t agree with you. You will have to ask the minister what he stated and why. I can’t agree with you that the [ministry] ever covered up any of the crimes.”
The trial continues next week.
Rachel Irwin is IWPR’s Senior Reporter in The Hague.
