Witness Speaks of Zupljanin Role in Prijedor

A former police official from Prijedor told the trial of Stojan Zupljanin this week that the defendant was trying to keep peace in the city despite rising tension between Serbs and non-Serbs in 1992.

Milos Jankovic, the communications chief of the public security station in Prijedor, testified as a defence witness in the case against two former senior Bosnian Serb police officials, Stojan Zupljanin and Mico Stanisic.

Zupljanin, the former chief of the Regional Security Services Centre of Banja Luka in northwestern Bosnia, and Stanisic, the former Bosnian Serb minister of internal affairs, are alleged to have participated in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs from the territory of an intended Serb state.

They are accused of crimes committed between April 1 and December 31, 1992, in 20 municipalities throughout Bosnia, including Prijedor in northwestern Bosnia.

Jankovic previously testified in two other cases at the Hague tribunal, which were also related to the crimes committed in the Prijedor area at the beginning of the Bosnian 1992-95 war.

This week, he told tribunal judges that the lead-up to the Serb takeover of the city on April 29-30, 1992, was “turbulent”.

Serb and non-Serb civilians alike were arming themselves. “You didn’t have to be particularly a proper sleuth in order to detect that,” the witness said. “I think in Prijedor, in the town square, one could buy a hand grenade.”

Jankovic said he had even heard about people gathering in restaurants to distribute rifles. Gunfire was exchanged, though the witness said he did not know the extent of it.

Jankovic said he did not remember any specific instances of public unrest. “You simply had this feeling of anticipation, waiting for that spark to lead to something major,” he said.

Because the Prijedor public security station fell under the Banja Luka centre, it was Zupljanin who came to the station in Prijedor on April 9 to discuss how to reduce interethnic tensions, the court heard.

During the meeting, two police officials from Prijedor spoke about the need to reorganise the Prijedor police station and other stations, including organising wartime police units - and the station’s chief of security said the force needed 700 men and 450 rifles to prepare for an outbreak of violence, according to the witness.

“Chief Zupljanin spoke about that, saying, ‘Well, gentlemen, why do you need all these rifles?’” Jankovic recalled. “‘We are public security. We are in charge of law and order. We work with people. Who are we going to fire at with rifles? Are we going to fire at the people?’”

Zupljanin said that was militarization, according to the witness. “We are turning the police into an army, and we cannot do that . . . . We need to ensure that there are as few conflicts as possible,” Zupljanin reportedly said.

According to the witness, ethnic divisions existed even in the police force, stifling efforts to find common ground. Jankovic said that Zupljanin told those at the meeting they had to agree among themselves on how to resolve the tension. “You cannot wait for someone coming from the outside to do that for you,” he allegedly said.

The meeting resulted in a temporary easing of tensions in the city - which the witness attributed to Zupljanin.

“[The local police officials] were acting in such an arrogant and brazen way,” he said. “They were putting forth certain conditions, saying ‘we don’t want this’ or ‘we want this’.”

Jankovic said it concerned him that his immediate superiors had the opportunity to reach an agreement, but instead “took up such a hard line where they wouldn’t [move] an inch.

“I couldn’t see where this was leading to, but I did know that that was not the way to do business.”

In contrast, Zupljanin, said the witness, “was acting in a very calm and polite way, trying to appease [each ethnic group] just like a mother tries to appease children when they’re being naughty.”

“There wasn’t a sentence that he uttered that was not aimed at easing tensions,” Jankovic said. “It was a reconciliatory tone, seeking to calm the situation down.”

Jankovic said he did not get the impression that the Bosnian Serb leadership wanted a war. “This is something that would have been conveyed down to us through [Zupljanin],” he said. “What I saw was an intention to find an agreement.”

But he pointed out that the breakout of war in Croatia and the Serbian takeover in Prijedor further intensified the divisions in the police station and in the city.

Jankovic, whose wife also worked at the station in the white collar crime division, described how his relationship with one of his wife’s co-workers, a Muslim, changed.

“We were on very good terms,” he said. “Then all of a sudden he started avoiding me.”

Jankovic testified that life became difficult for non-Serbs after the takeover, and many Muslims left the station.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Thomas Hannis pressed Jankovic for more details about what made staying in Prijedor after the takeover uncomfortable for non-Serbs.

The witness responded that until May 30, 1992, when Muslims in Prijedor attacked the police building and municipal building, Muslims were only brought to the station for questioning for specific incidents. It was after the attack that roundups became systematic.

“I understood that it’s not a simple question to answer,” Hannis said. “You didn’t precisely answer the question I was asking about what it was that made it hard for the non-Serbs, for the Muslims.”

“The first part of the question - what is the uncomfortable thing for those who are not Serbs - it’s the same answer to the question of what happened to those who were not Muslims in areas where the Muslims were a majority,” Jankovic said.

“Is it fair to say, in the Prijedor municipality, in areas where Muslims were a majority, it was difficult for non-Muslims because there was the danger of harassment, discrimination, even violence? And likewise, in the Serb-majority parts of Prijedor, it was uncomfortable and dangerous for non-Serbs for the same reasons - because there were extremist Muslims and extremist Serbs?” said the prosecutor.

Jankovic said that was correct, but that was an incomplete way of looking at the situation because no town or area in Bosnia or Yugoslavia is like the area of Prijedor or Kozarac. He cited the nearly 20,000 children and 20,000 to 30,000 adults that were killed or expelled from the area during World War II.

“In this area there is no Serbian home that does not have at least one horrible story to tell,” he said. “This is a very uncommon region and everything that can be critically looked at has to be looked at in the light of what applies to them.”

The trial continues next week.

Alexandra Arkin is an IWPR intern in The Hague.