SLOVAKIA'S BILATERAL WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRATISLAVA 000543

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR EUR/NCE, EUR/SCE, EUR/ACE, AND GTIP
DOJ FOR VIC STONE
BUCHAREST FOR SECI CENTER - GAVIN CORN
CHISINAU FOR LEGAT - HOLLY WEISMAN
USEU FOR MARK RICHARDS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/11/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL KJUS PHUM LO
SUBJECT: SLOVAKIA'S BILATERAL WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

Classified By: Scott N. Thayer for reasons of 1.5 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary. The Slovak Republic founded its witness
protection program in January 1999. One of the unique facets
of the program is its success in arranging bilateral
protection agreements with other European nations. Slovakia
was the first post-communist nation to both send witnesses
abroad and to accept them from other European countries. On
June 13 and 14, poloff participated in a two-day briefing on
Slovakia's program with the DOJ advisor to the SECI-Center
(South-East European Cooperation Initiative) Gavin Corn and
Legat to Moldova Holly Weisman. The Director of the Witness
Protection Department, Anton Krc, provided information about
legislative matters, explained the process of negotiating
bilateral protection agreements, and elaborated on several
case studies. Participants commented that the Slovak program
may serve as a model for other small post-communist countries
in South-East Europe. End Summary.

Early Challenges to the Program
--------------


2. (C) After the rapid growth of organized crime in 1989,
Slovak police realized their system was ineffective at
providing protection to witnesses willing to testifying
against criminals. Several high-level cases, such as the
murder of a key witness testifying against the former
Director of the Slovak Information Service (SIS) in 1996,
inspired the police to seek experience and advice from other
nations. A new Slovak law, loosely based on the Italian
model, became effective in January 1999 and the witness
protection unit received its first (and most difficult
witness to date) only days after receiving the initial
budget. Anton Krc, the director of the witness protection
unit, was largely responsible for the development of the
program and provided emboffs and other USG officials with
information about its operation.


3. (C) Initially, police confronted several challenges to
reforming witness protection. First, when taking into
consideration Slovakia's small population and land area, it
became apparent most witnesses should be relocated abroad.
Therefore, it was necessary to create conditions to protect
other nationalities on the basis of reciprocity, as well as
Slovaks. Slovakia now hosts witnesses from six other
nations, and two-thirds of the Slovak participants in their
program are living in foreign countries. Second, trust in
police was low due to petty corruption and lack of experience
with witnesses in high-level cases. The police suggested
forming an independent committee that would diminish possible
political interference and accusations of police misuse.

The Commission and Judgments
--------------


4. (C) A commission, consisting of five members, supervises
the witness protection program for Slovak citizens. The
Interior Minister appoints one criminal police officer, one
police investigator, a prosecutor, a former judge, an
employee of the prison corps, and alternate for each
commission member to maintain continuity. The identities of
the commission members are not released to the public. The
commission reviews petitions for witnesses to be allowed into
the program on a permanent basis, as well as requests for
short-term emergency protection measures. In some instances,
the commission has denied permanent protection and the
witness was immediately released from previously granted
interim protection measures.


5. (C) The chairman of the committee must convene a meeting
to review a request within seven days of receiving a proposal
from the police. Another three months is allocated to obtain
more information about the case, to evaluate the value of the
testimony, or conduct independent hearings. Four of the five
commission members must vote in the affirmative for the
witness to be taken into protective custody. Decisions are
made by secret ballot and the applicant/the witness's
proponent only receives the result of the vote with no other
justification provided.


6. (C) The police make all decisions regarding foreign
nationals who participate in the Slovak system. The police
set the conditions for exchange and monitor the individuals
accordingly. While witnesses on occasion violate the strict
conditions set by police, Krc stated it was difficult to
terminate someone's status. In only one instance, the police
terminated the program for a former hitman accused of

repeatedly returning to his country of origin to extort
money. Police would inform the commission if Slovak citizens
violated the conditions of their program, who would then vote
for expulsion from the program if warranted.

Becoming a State's Witness
--------------


7. (C) After the commission votes to grant protection, the
witness protection unit begins to prepare for bringing the
person and any dependents into state custody. All
participants must agree to several basic principles, such as
breaking all prior contacts and avoiding former residences.
While in the program the witness must inform police of any
new contacts and commit no crimes. One of the most
important aspects of the program is that witnesses must agree
to become self-sufficient overtime. Even though the average
Slovak salary is approximately 12,000 SKK (387 USD) per
month, the police must provide a salary commensurate with the
witness's previous profession, which could be triple the
average. These expenses in the beginning are compounded when
a Slovak witness is relocated to a Western European nation.
All participants are gradually weaned from the budget. The
current budget for the program is approximately 20 million
SKK (645,160 USD).

First/Second Unit: Handlers
--------------


8. (C) The group responsible for day-to-day management of
witness protection is comprised of 34 officers in four
sub-divisions; the first and second units are handlers.
These agents evaluate whether a person is eligible for
relocation abroad. Before relocation from safehouses, the
handler assists with all the necessary arrangements to assure
that the witnesses will eventually become independent. The
police officers help develop the language, job, and education
skills that the witness will need. To add an additional
layer of security, the unit usually does not know where the
witnesses will be located abroad. Police in the new country
of residence facilitate continued communication, and
witnesses can be issued cell phones used only to contact the
handlers. The unit continues to provide services, such as
assisting the witness in returning to Slovakia to attend to
financial matters, and helps organize visits witQamily
members once a year, usually in third countries to ensure
that the new residence is not compromised. After the
individual is no longer receiving monetary assistance from
the state, these visits tend to taper off.

Third Unit: An Additional Identity
--------------


9. (C) For Slovak witnesses sent abroad, the third police
unit creates an additional identity to be used abroad. The
original identity is not wiped out completely in order for
the subject to collect legal inheritance and to use the
original identity for return trips to Slovakia. The police
are also responsible Qr creating a workable cover story and
backstopping all other legal records. The Slovaks not
relocated abroad also receive additional identities and can
also be placed in jails. The unit reported that individuals
are more at-risk to leave the program if placed in jails.
Since there is such a small number of participants in the
program, the witnesses are usually confined alone and
perceive the protection program as punishment.

Fourth Unit: Protection Technology
--------------


10. (C) During the trial, the unit also arranges short-term
protection for witnesses. Video-conferencing technology is
available upon the decision of the judge. The unit director
expressed dismay that this technology is not used more often
because judges and lawyers are reluctant to agree to these
measures. He speculated on the reasons: they might be
apprehensive about new technology, corruption could be a
factor, or the defense could successfully cast doubt on the
validity of the video testimony. In most trials, the judge
is physically located in the same room as the witness,
therefore the victim usually returns to Slovakia. The
witness can testify from an embassy abroad, but that is very
rare. This technology was most recently used to provide
testimony for a German case that involved a Nazi war criminal
who committed crimes in Slovakia. The fourth unit also can
employ the use of SWAT teams, police traffic patrols, or
police dogs to protect a returning witness.

Comment
--------------


11. (C) The Slovak witness protection program is still
relatively young and has not confronted certain hurdles.
However, the country is a good model for countries where
corruption is a perceived problem, and for countries with a
small population. In only a few years, the Slovaks have
worked with over 70 individuals to provide protection. In a
few cases, individuals violated the rules of the program, and
some have voluntarily left, but overall the program has been
quite successful.

THAYER


NNNN