<<previous  | index  |  next>>

Case Study 1: Illegal Dealings: The Stubborn Helicopter Deal

In 2000 and 2001, Slovakia was caught in the web of an international smuggling ring that supplied arms to Liberia, which is under a U.N. embargo. The Liberia arms embargo was initially established in 1992, following the outbreak of renewed fighting in that country’s 1989-1997 civil war. The embargo was kept in place as insecurity persisted and spread beyond Liberia’s borders. The 1992 embargo was replaced with a new, tighter embargo in 2001, intended to curb arms deliveries via Liberia to embargoed rebels in Sierra Leone. From mid-2000, Liberia itself began to slide back into civil war, one in which both sides committed war crimes and other serious human rights abuses.⁸ The activities of the arms traffickers who illegally supplied arms to Liberia were brought to light by a U.N. expert panel in an October 2001 report and later documents.⁹ The findings of the panel are presented below, as is additional information uncovered by Human Rights Watch.

This case demonstrates that transnational arms trafficking networks seek out countries with lax controls to carry out their deals, and that Slovakia, with its legal loopholes and poor monitoring of the arms trade, made a particularly vulnerable target. Suspected traffickers were able to carry out repeated deals without interference, even with assistance from government officials, by using the false pretext that they represented legitimate clients. The case thus also clearly suggests the steps needed for Slovakia to clamp down on illicit arms trafficking. As will also be discussed further below, some but not all of these steps have begun to be taken.

The U.N.’s Findings

The U.N. panel found that a network of arms traffickers bypassed legal controls in several countries by using front companies, declaring false destinations, and providing forged documents. The arms dealers supplying Liberia arranged arms deals in Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, and most of these deals were completed before their illegal activities were exposed. The U.N. found that these arms dealers were linked to and operated closely with the air cargo companies of Victor Bout, featured as a major sanctions-buster in numerous U.N. reports.¹⁰

With respect to Slovakia, the U.N. panel found that people involved in this arms trafficking network illegally re-exported to Liberia 1,000 AK-47 assault rifles in November 2000 that Uganda had imported from Slovakia a few weeks earlier. The panel also found that the traffickers attempted to re-export from Uganda a second consignment of 1,250 small arms supplied by Slovakia. In a related case, examined in detail below, two Mi-24 combat helicopters from Kyrgyzstan were shipped to Slovakia to be repaired. The Mi-24 or “Hind” helicopter is a heavily armed helicopter gunship, and the U.N. panel found that Liberia was eager to obtain such equipment. One of the Mi-24s repaired in Slovakia was allowed to leave in August 2000, purportedly to be flown back to Kyrgyzstan. A second helicopter was intercepted in February 2001 as it was at the airport, prepared to leave Slovakia. The U.N. panel was unable to establish the ultimate destination of the first helicopter but strongly suspected it was illegally delivered to Liberia and asserted that the second helicopter, had it not been stopped, would have gone to Liberia as well. The U.N. found numerous indications for this, including that the arms brokering company, the air transport company, and the plane used for both shipments all played a role in other illegal arms deliveries to Liberia.

The panel’s report described that the then Kyrgyz military attaché in Moscow, Maj. Gen. Rashid Urazmatov, signed a contract with the Slovak repair company LOT (Letecke Opravovne Trencin, or Aircraft Repair Company Trencin), claiming to act on behalf of the government of Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz authorities, however, said they had no idea about a repair contract and, to the contrary, had arranged to sell the helicopters to a Guinean company, Pecos Compagnie SA, in a deal arranged by Alexander Islamov, a Russian partner in that company.¹¹ The helicopters purportedly were for the government of Guinea, according to the document supplied by Pecos that showed the ultimate purchaser of the weapons (a document known as an end-user certificate or EUC).¹²

EUCs are drawn up by national authorities, and there are no common international standards stipulating, for example, what information they should contain, for how long they remain valid, who is authorized to sign them, nor how they should be authenticated. As a result, unscrupulous arms dealers can readily prepare fake EUCs or enlist corrupt government officials to issue EUCs for weapons shipments destined to third parties, thus providing false cover for illegal arms deals. In the case of the Kyrgyz helicopters, the document Islamov provided to the government of Kyrgyzstan proved to be a forgery. The U.N. found that the Pecos company was at the center of other illicit arms transactions involving Liberia, having supplied false end-user certificates in a number of cases to disguise Liberia’s arms purchases.¹³

The U.N. report went on to recite that Pecos was established in Guinea in 1997, had a Guinean citizen as statutory manager, and presented itself as a weapons procurer for the Guinean Ministry of Defense.¹⁴ The company, however, was a front company, according to the U.N., and its true origins were in Europe, not Africa. Pecos was established by a Slovak arms dealer, Peter Jusko, who also owned a Slovakia-based arms trading company, Joy Slovakia, established in 1994.¹⁵ Joy Slovakia was active in the arms trade from Central and Eastern Europe.¹⁶ Investigations by several law enforcement agencies from 1997 forced it to curtail its activities somewhat and led to the creation of Pecos as a successor company.¹⁷ The business partners involved in Joy Slovakia and/or Pecos included arms dealers from Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Russia, and Ukraine, not to mention business associates in other countries.¹⁸

Human Rights Watch’s Findings

A Human Rights Watch investigation added to what was already known about the helicopter case, particularly with respect to the involvement of the Slovak individuals and the Slovak government. The findings, described in detail below, cover several topics. They highlight the legal loophole that opened the door to abuse, describe the previously unknown role of Slovak military officials in facilitating the deal, and make clear the Kyrgyz general’s wider interest in negotiating weapons contracts in Slovakia, with success in at least one other case. The case study offers details about the helicopter repair contract that was concluded, including transport and payment arrangements. It also touches on how the ruse was uncovered and explains the circumstances in which the helicopter was detained and the many efforts to release it. Finally, it notes challenges to the criminal prosecution opened in the case.

A Loophole Big Enough to Fly a Helicopter Through

Key to the fiasco was a loophole in Slovak law under which the arms deal with Kyrgyzstan did not require approval from Slovakia’s arms-export licensing commission. At that time, and until the loophole was closed in December 2001 in reaction to this scandal (see The Evolution of Slovakia’s Arms Trade Controls, below), arms deals were exempt from licensing requirements if the transaction was for repair or refurbishment. As a result, no license application was filed for deals involving repair or upgrading of military equipment from abroad; no end-user certificate was required; and no document authentication or checks on the destination were performed. Arms traffickers who shipped weapons to Slovakia for “repair” and then “returned” them could thus avoid import and export regulations. In essence, the sole control on such trade was through customs checks at the country’s frontiers and civil aviation controls in the case of delivery by air.

In principle, an added, if thin, layer of control applies for state-owned companies, whose activities are overseen by the Ministry of Defense (MOD). LOT, the Trencin-based aircraft repair company that entered into a contract to repair the helicopters, is state-owned.¹⁹

Military Officials Facilitate the Arms Deal

In this case, as it happened, the Slovak MOD was heavily involved. The accounts of LOT representatives and MOD officials make clear that two Slovak military officials played a key role by introducing Maj. Gen. Urazmatov, the Kyrgyz military attaché in Moscow, to the repair company. After being contacted by Urazmatov, the Slovak military attaché in Moscow, Maj. Gen. Milan Podhorani, asked a MOD colleague in Bratislava to help the Kyrgyz official negotiate arms contracts in Slovakia. On that basis, the then-director of a MOD office responsible for surplus material, Peter Harustiak, met with Urazmatov and arranged to introduce him to representatives of the Slovak aircraft repair company, LOT. Urazmatov’s meeting with the director and commercial director of LOT took place during the International Defense Equipment Exhibition (IDEE) arms fair in Trencin, Slovakia, in early May 2000. LOT’s representative in Moscow also met Urazmatov, both at the time of the arms fair and in a subsequent meeting. Podhorani, the Slovak military attaché, helped arrange that introduction.²⁰

Both MOD officials met with Urazmatov again in June 2000, in Harustiak’s office at MOD headquarters in Bratislava, and again and in the fall of that year, in Podhorani’s office in Moscow, located in the Slovak embassy.²¹ Further meetings may also have been held. LOT representatives said they viewed as sufficient the recommendation of Slovak officials and did not feel it was necessary or appropriate for them to perform further checks or to request the Slovak government do so.²² The Slovak military officials, for their part, maintain that at the time they made these introductions they believed they were dealing with a counterpart in the Kyrgyz government, and only learned later that the brokering company Pecos was behind the deal.²³

The Slovak MOD was informed at the highest level of Urazmatov’s arms dealings in the country, and from a relatively early stage, but apparently took no precautions. On May 12, 2000, following the arms fair where he introduced Urazmatov to LOT, Harustiak prepared a report for the then minister of defense, Pavol Kanis, informing him that Urazmatov was in contact with Slovak military officials and intended to enter into an arms deal with LOT.²⁴ Human Rights Watch was unable to learn whether military intelligence or other Slovak officials made inquiries into Urazmatov’s background, or that of Islamov, as would have been appropriate under the circumstances.²⁵ Had they done so, they should have been able to readily learn that two years earlier, in 1998, the government of Ukraine had declared both men personae non grata for engaging in illegal mercenary recruitment activities there.²⁶

The 1998 Ukrainian mercenary investigation centered on Joy Slovakia,²⁷ the company registered in Slovakia that was the precursor to Pecos. Allegations of illicit arms trafficking and other criminal activity by persons involved in the company circulated from at least 1997 and were known by Slovak officials.²⁸ For example, in April 1998 Ukrainian authorities informed their Slovak counterparts that Alexander Islamov was suspected of acting through Joy Slovakia to send Ukrainian mercenaries to Angola via Slovakia in 1997.²⁹ Islamov, who for a time had a permit to reside in Slovakia, was a director of Joy Slovakia and was one of the Joy Slovakia partners who formed Pecos, which also earned a dubious reputation.³⁰ Urazmatov reportedly acted as a “representative” of Joy Slovakia.³¹

Negotiations for Weapons Contracts

From an early stage Urazmatov expressed interest in negotiating a number of arms deals in Slovakia. Urazmatov’s attendance at the May 2000 IDEE arms fair, at which he was accompanied by MOD official Harustiak, presumably allowed him the opportunity to make contact with a number of other arms companies, mostly from Slovakia, who were represented at the event.

A month earlier, in April 2000, he supplied the Slovak MOD with a long list of weapons he said Kyrgyzstan wished to obtain. These included twenty Mi-24 attack helicopters, 100 BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, ten L-39 trainers, spare parts for fighter aircraft, machine gun and cannon ammunition, anti-aircraft missiles, and unguided air-to-ground rockets, as well as other weapons seemingly intended to equip an air force.³² (See Appendix 1, which is stamped by the Acquisition Authority of the Slovak Ministry of Defense and the Kyrgyz Delegation to the Military Cooperation Council of Commonwealth of Independent States. Urazmatov is identified on the same document as the Kyrgyz representative to the Military Cooperation Coordination Staff of CIS States.) He also provided a document purporting to show that he was authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Kyrgyz MOD with Slovak companies.³³ (That document, printed on letterhead of the office of the defense minister and with what was purported to be the signature of the deputy defense minister, as well as the stamp of the Executive Office of the Kyrgyz MOD, is included as Appendix 2.) Notably, this authorization was drafted to permit negotiations with both aircraft and tank repair facilities, suggesting that he may have pursued contracts other than the one that came to light regarding the helicopter.³⁴

Human Rights Watch learned that Urazmatov did arrange at least one further repair deal in Slovakia. Four infantry fighting vehicles, BMP-2s, were shipped for repair and upgrading by the state-owned Vojensky Opravarensky Podnik 027 (Military Repairs Company 027, or VOP 027), also located in Trencin. The then director of VOP 027, who responded to a query through the Slovak Ministry of Defense, said that all four had been seized and remained in Slovakia pending the completion of an investigation. He confirmed that Urazmatov arranged the deal and told the company at the time that the initial repair of four units constituted a trial run and if all went well further contracts for up to fifty more vehicles would follow.³⁵ Peter Jusko, a Slovak partner in Pecos who was implicated in the helicopter deal (see below), said he had knowledge of this deal as well. He alleged that the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles were imported to Slovakia in October 2000, that Islamov also was involved in this deal using the Pecos name, and that Islamov obtained the BMP-2s in Kyrgyzstan.³⁶

With respect to aircraft repair, LOT entered into direct negotiations with Urazmatov on the basis of the high-level introductions from Slovak military officials. At a meeting at LOT’s offices on June 2, 2000, the two sides agreed to a contract for the repair of two helicopters, which Urazmatov signed on behalf of the Kyrgyz MOD.³⁷ The contract also envisioned that work on ten jet trainers would be undertaken, but ultimately this deal fell through.³⁸

It later became apparent that Urazmatov’s authorization was not genuine. The Kyrgyz MOD said that it was unaware of any repair contract involving the helicopters, that it had not given Urazmatov permission to sign any such contract, and that it had in fact sold both helicopters to the Pecos company, so it had no ownership rights over them in any case.³⁹ The contracts between Pecos and the Kyrgyz MOD dated back several years, to 1997 and 1998.⁴⁰

Details of the Helicopter Deal

The first helicopter, as reported by the U.N., was delivered in late June 2000 aboard an Ilyushin-76 registration number TL-ACU registered in the Central African Republic and operated under a charter contract for Centrafricain Airlines of Bangui.⁴¹ LOT representatives told Human Rights Watch that Islamov and Urazmatov arrived with the helicopter and brought with them a Ukrainian-speaking technical expert named Sokolov, who stayed to oversee the repair and help coordinate transportation arrangements.⁴²

The repair performed on the helicopter was nominal, according to LOT. It was completed in a few weeks, at a cost of approximately $60,000.⁴³ The U.N. documented that the same Il-76 TL-ACU returned to collect the helicopter on August 2, 2000. Where it went next is uncertain, but it did not return to Kyrgyzstan for some three weeks. When it did return, it departed again on a flight ostensibly bound for Guinea but that in fact, the U.N. determined, went to Liberia. The same plane, the U.N. reported, had been used for an illegal arms delivery to Liberia in May 2000.⁴⁴

The second helicopter was dropped off on October 10, 2000.⁴⁵ It was in worse condition and required more extensive repairs, which cost about $150,000.⁴⁶ Even this, however, was only a fraction of what would have been required for a full general repair. The LOT representatives emphasized that, at the client’s request, repairs were kept to a bare minimum.

With respect to payment arrangements, LOT representatives stated that work on the first helicopter was paid in full, and that payment was made for the second helicopter, although in the latter case they did not recover extra expenses of some $10,000-$15,000 beyond the estimated price.⁴⁷ The funds arrived in installments, LOT representatives recalled, two from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).⁴⁸ Official documents show that one payment was issued in the amount of $88,974 and credited to LOT’s account at the Slovak Vseobecna Uverova Banka (also known as VUB Bank) branch in Trencin.⁴⁹ The payment was made by Gulf Stream Ships (no further identifying information provided) using Emirates Bank International PJSC Dubai, from the United Arab Emirates.⁵⁰ In addition, the U.N. indicated that it obtained copies of money transfers to LOT by the UAE-based company San Air General Trading.⁵¹ San Air has been identified by the U.N. as a front used by arms trafficker Victor Bout to arrange and also pay for illicit arms shipments,⁵² suggesting the possibility that the other company, Gulf Stream Ships, was also a Victor Bout front.⁵³

A Tip-Off Leads to Seizure of the Helicopter

Slovak officials halted the fraud on February 21, 2001, as the helicopter was at the airport awaiting the plane that came to collect it, but the deal had been under surveillance for at least a few weeks before that. About a month before the repair was complete, LOT’s director was asked to facilitate a visit to the plant by domestic and foreign intelligence services.⁵⁴ He said that they told him they suspected the first helicopter had not been delivered to Kyrgyzstan, as specified in the repair contract.⁵⁵ Media reporting suggested that the government was tipped off by British foreign intelligence, which accords with information available to Human Rights Watch.⁵⁶

The company was not advised to cancel the deal, LOT representatives said, so they provided the available information about the contract to the visitors and proceeded as planned toward its completion. Under a provision of the contract for the helicopter deal, transport arrangements were the responsibility of the client. According to LOT representatives, Islamov took the lead in organizing the transport, working with the Ukrainian technical expert who stayed in Slovakia.⁵⁷

The same Ilyushin-76, bearing registration number TL-ACU, was sent to collect the second helicopter. While the plane had been allowed to drop off and collect the first helicopter, apparently without any difficulty before the tip-off, this time Slovak civil aviation authorities checked details of the flight and, as reported by the U.N., found a number of inconsistencies and had to request further documentation before clearing the flight.⁵⁸ The U.N. noted that the three companies in whose names permission for the flight was sought formed part of the arms transport network of Victor Bout, who, for example, owns Centrafricain Airlines.⁵⁹ The U.N. described the Il-76 TL-ACU as “Victor Bout’s plane.”⁶⁰

The day after Slovak civil aviation cleared the plane to travel to Slovakia, Slovak customs detained the helicopter shipment at the Sliac military airport near Trencin on suspicion that false customs information had been supplied.⁶¹ Documents obtained by Human Rights Watch indicate that the pilot for Centrafricain Airlines, Andrej Semikin, a resident of Uzbekistan, had declared that the plane was to deliver the helicopter to Kyrgyzstan, which Slovak officials knew by that time was not the case.⁶² The helicopter was seized and placed in storage. The plane and crew were allowed to leave, however, and the same plane soon traveled to Moldova, where an attempt was made to pick up two military helicopters, also presumably for delivery to Liberia, according to the U.N.⁶³

Aggressive Efforts to Release the Helicopter

One of the striking elements of this case is the length to which various parties went to try to secure the release of the helicopter. According to LOT, in a matter of a few days, Urazmatov visited the company and also met with customs and the Ministry of Defense, but he was not allowed to reclaim the helicopter.⁶⁴ Next, Peter Jusko, the Slovak national who was Islamov’s partner in Pecos (and previously in Joy Slovakia, see text attached to footnote 15), made a series of efforts to release the helicopter.⁶⁵ He described these in an interview with Human Rights Watch in which he strongly denied any wrongdoing in connection with this case and attributed the affair to Islamov (and, to a lesser extent, Urazmatov), whom he accused of operating a “shadow Pecos” without the knowledge or involvement of other company officers.⁶⁶ According to Jusko, he intervened only after learning from a Guinean partner, Mohammed Yansané, that the Pecos name was mixed up with allegations of illegal arms trafficking to Liberia.⁶⁷ Jusko faces criminal charges in connection with the case.⁶⁸

According to both Jusko and LOT representatives, Jusko’s first attempt to obtain the helicopter was in April or May 2001, when he arrived at LOT and presented a copy of a Guinean EUC, as well as a power of attorney authorizing him to act on behalf of Pecos. LOT turned him away, explaining that the company would require proof that Pecos, rather than the Kyrgyz MOD, was the rightful owner of the helicopter.⁶⁹

In his interview with Human Rights Watch Jusko related that in mid-2001 he tried again, but this time he sought to obtain the helicopter for a different client: Namibia. He made some inquiries in Slovakia on behalf of Namibia, and in late August 2001 Jusko helped coordinate the visit to Slovakia of the Namibian military attaché in Berlin. This person, Leonard Nambahu, said he represented the interests of the Namibian government in the matter of the helicopter. Jusko said he intervened after being contacted by a Turkish arms dealer who said that the helicopter had been legally purchased from Islamov for the Namibian Ministry of Defense.⁷⁰ The Namibian Ministry of Defense did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s request for comment. Mr. Nambahu, contacted at the Namibian Embassy in Berlin, declined to comment on the matter without permission from his superiors.⁷¹

Jusko and Nambahu visited LOT on August 28, 2001, where they presented the company with an EUC dated March 28, 2001, purporting to indicate that the detained helicopter had been purchased from Kyrgyzstan via Pecos and was now the property of the government of Namibia.⁷² The text of the EUC, which contained a number of typographical or spelling errors (e.g., “Pacos,” rather than “Pecos”), promised that the helicopter “will be used solely by us and will not be re-exported to any other country.”⁷³

On this basis, and again without performing or requesting further checks, LOT submitted an application for an export license for the helicopter, which was unsuccessful.⁷⁴ LOT representatives acknowledged that the inability to prove the change in ownership of the helicopter remained an impediment to its resale.⁷⁵ Looking back on the helicopter fiasco, LOT representatives said they had acted in good faith throughout, but that in hindsight they realized they should not have unquestioningly accepted the reliability of persons with whom they were doing business and the documents these people provided.⁷⁶ They insisted, however, that they had no way to establish the credentials of their potential clients or the authenticity of the documents provided and instead depended on government authorities to perform such checks.⁷⁷ Human Rights Watch was not able to establish if the Ministry of Defense conducted any checks, as would have been appropriate.⁷⁸

There continues to be some confusion regarding the authenticity of the claim that the Namibian government had purchased the helicopter. The U.N. stated that a Namibian EUC they obtained dated March 28, 2001, (the same date as that presented to LOT) represented yet another forgery, as confirmed to them by Namibian authorities.⁷⁹ The police investigator responsible for the case also asserted that the EUC presented in Slovakia was false.⁸⁰ A senior Slovak official, however, was under a different impression. He said the MOD of Namibia made high-level official contacts to seek the release of the seized helicopter, which they indicated they had purchased at a reduced rate due to the complications of the case.⁸¹

The Investigation and Prosecution: A Slow Start

Slovak authorities arrested Peter Jusko on November 29, 2001, and announced plans to prosecute him in connection with the helicopter deal. The Jusko arrest came the month after the release of the U.N. report that exposed Slovakia’s links to the international arms trafficking operation, but Slovak authorities insisted the move was independent of public and international pressure. They attributed the delay to a lengthy investigation by customs officials, which was followed by further police inquiries before the case could be passed to prosecutors for action.⁸²

Jusko was charged with an attempt to contravene arms trading regulations.⁸³ He was ordered released from custody by court decision in December 2001, and prosecutors (who in mid-2002 lost an appeal to that decision) said that they were unable to predict when the trial would begin.⁸⁴ Criminal charges were also laid in the same case against Alexander Islamov, and against Maj. Gen. Rashid Urazmatov, who was removed from his post as the Kyrgyz military attaché in Moscow following attention to his role in the helicopter deal.⁸⁵ Unlike Jusko, both were charged with actual, rather than attempted, breaches of the arms trade regulations.⁸⁶

Some Slovak officials emphasized that in their view Slovakia was not at the center of illicit arms trafficking activities. Instead, they felt it simply had had the misfortune to be touched by a network operating from other countries.⁸⁷ Particularly in light of this attitude, it is notable that the government nevertheless determined to arrest an accused Slovak arms dealer and initiate prosecution against him.

This case has international as well as national significance. Around the world, arms traffickers rarely pay a price for their illegal activities, but some prosecutions have been initiated. Where undertaken with seriousness, these offer the prospect of punishing those who flout national arms trade controls and breaking up the international networks that perpetuate such activities.⁸⁸

To date, various signals suggest that the prosecution in Slovakia has not been given the seriousness it deserves and that a trial will be very late, if it comes at all. Customs and police investigators stated in April 2002 that there was no political will behind the Jusko prosecution and that political leaders seemed to be uninterested in the case and preoccupied with the elections set for September 2002, but that following the elections the situation might improve.⁸⁹ As of this writing, however, Human Rights Watch remains concerned that insufficient attention and resources have been dedicated to the case, which as a result has proceeded very slowly.

No domestic investigative task force was created, as investigators indicated sometimes happened for high-profile cases in Slovakia. Nor was an international task force formed to aid in this complex case involving a transnational network. Instead, only one police investigator was assigned to the case, one who had other cases to cover simultaneously. After police reviewed thousands of documents seized in the case, the investigation hit a dead end. They said there was no capacity to undertake further inquiries without cooperation from other countries, which Slovak officials did not believe would be forthcoming or would simply take too long. This rationale, however, is called into question by the fact that Slovak authorities in January 2003 confirmed that no requests for legal assistance had been filed, nor were there plans at that time to prepare such requests.⁹⁰ The case experienced a potential further setback when it was reassigned following the departure in late 2002 of the police investigator who had been working on it.⁹¹

Developments in 2003 are far from encouraging. In April 2003 the new investigator decided to put the prosecution on hold. His explanation was that the case against all three accused persons could not proceed until Islamov and Urazmatov had been questioned and this would not be possible until the two men had been located. The investigator declined to separate Jusko’s case from that of the other two defendants, stating that interrogations of those two suspects and other inquiries overseas were needed to establish the facts in the Jusko case. In June 2003 the prosecutor’s office upheld the investigator’s decision.⁹²

At this writing, the case against Jusko remained focused on the attempted shipment of the second helicopter. Slovak officials acknowledged that an attempted crime would be hard to prove, that the persons involved had made efforts to cover their tracks, and that Slovakia had very little experience with prosecuting arms trafficking cases. It remained unclear if prosecutors would add charges related to the falsification of documents, the first helicopter that was allowed to leave Slovakia in mid-2000, or other alleged actual or attempted illegal arms deals carried out in Slovakia by persons involved in Pecos and/or Joy Slovakia. Slovak officials said they were making no effort to secure custody of Islamov and Urazmatov, nor did they request an international arrest warrant, as the expectation was that they should be tried in their countries of residence.⁹³

The prosecutor noted in January 2003 that police had received “secret materials” from customs officials that might result in a broadening of the charges in this case. While he would not specify, these may relate to the deal for the repair of the four infantry fighting vehicles, about which Human Rights Watch independently learned.⁹⁴

Peter Jusko told Human Rights Watch he intends to mount a vigorous defense. By his account, he is innocent of any wrongdoing. He asserted that he is being framed to take the blame for the misdeeds of Urazmatov and Islamov and to cover possible corruption in the Slovak MOD linked to this arms trade. Jusko questioned the evidence against him and the legality of his questioning and arrest.⁹⁵ He also argued that Slovak authorities have ignored information that was in his favor.⁹⁶

While seeking to distance himself from this arms trafficking operation, Jusko suggested that elements of the Slovak government knew more about it than they let on: “There is no black [market] trade with arms except small traffickers that smuggle weapons for example in their car. Arms trade is always done with the approval of one state or another. It is always possible [for governments] to check, to control, for example at the airports. And that is why also in Slovakia authorities must have known about the first helicopter that was exported.”⁹⁷ Jusko expressed particular suspicion about the possible role of Russian and Slovak intelligence services.⁹⁸

The Slovak Ministry of Defense has begun an internal investigation into the helicopter fiasco, including the role of military officials. The investigation was still underway as of late May 2002, according to a spokesperson for the military’s inspection office, who said he would comment only after it was completed.⁹⁹ Human Rights Watch was unable to obtain any updated information about the status of that investigation.

To date, the only party to be found responsible for any wrongdoing has been LOT. Customs officials fined the company 2 million Slovak crowns (SKK), approximately $41,400, for not properly checking the consignee of the February 2001 helicopter shipment. The decision was challenged by the company, which has maintained that it relied on state authorities to perform any needed checks.¹⁰⁰

Under the repair loophole, however, such contracts were exempt from normal licensing procedures. Inadequate legal controls, combined with lax attitudes on the part of the company and the Ministry of Defense and the direct assistance of some MOD officials, meant that no action was taken to detect and deter illicit arms transactions. The situation was such that Slovakia was an inviting target for arms traffickers seeking an easy place to do illegal deals—and get away with it.