It happened that we could not inspect certain cases and documents of the ISA, and there were cases when we were prevented from inspecting the reports sent against this Agency.

Prosecution witness Damir Bevanda, chief inspector at ISA, whose job description supervises the work of this service, from the lowest to the highest official, including director Mehmedagić, said this today in the continuation of the trial in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Osman Mehmedagic and Muhamed Pekić.

Who sent the report to ISA

Mehmedagić and Pekić are charged with abuse of office under the indictment of the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mehmedagić, as the director of ISA, and Pekić, as the head of the Cyber Security Department at this institution, are accused of unauthorized obtaining information about the sender of the anonymous report against Mehmedagić.

According to the indictment, they learned in an unspecified manner that an anonymous report had been filed, and Pekić, according to Mehmedagić's order to obtain the recording, contacted the director of "BH Post".

They asked for surveillance footage for August 27th, stating that it was a state secret.

When asked by prosecutor Oleg Čavka whether citizens can submit reports to the ISA, Bevanda answered affirmative, more precisely that the report can be submitted directly to the director of the ISA or the Court of B&H.

- The practice is to send it to me too. There are also insider reports - Bevanda said.

Asked if there were cases when any of the ISA employees sent a report against the head of the agency, Bevanda confirmed that there were such cases.

- These are reports in case of non-compliance - he added.

Čavka then asked him if there were any reports related to irregularities and if then the director has the right to deny the chief inspector access to official documents?

- He shouldn't. We have to determine the factual situation - he pointed out.

But when asked further by the prosecutor if this worked in practice, Bevanda replied:

- Not really. It happened that we could not inspect certain cases and documents and there were some reports where we were prevented from doing so. In one case from the general director (Osman Mehmedagić), in another from the manager - says Bevanda.

The witness answered the question whether, when an oral order on action is issued, how a written trace is provided, he clarified that, that trace must be recorded as an official note.

When asked by the prosecutor what if the order is illegal, he pointed out that the employee must express doubts, ask for a written clue and inform the competent person about it.

This witness also answered the question today whether the ISA has the authority to provide the media with information obtained by the service and which is classified.

When it comes to the media, the law on ISA stipulates that this agency only submits a report on its work once a year, nothing else - he added.

Amina Ohranović testified

Čavka then wondered if OSA could establish and have its own media?

It shouldn't have - said Bevanda. When asked by Čavka if he had any, he answered:

- I don't know if ISA has its own media.

This witness also answered questions about whether ISA collects data that are not of interest to the service and what it must do with it.

Such data must be destroyed - he pointed out.

He denied that he was aware of the operation to exclude the video from the Post Office, saying that he found out about it from the media.

I really don't know anything about the official actions - Bevanda said.

Witness Trifko Buha, Deputy Director of ISA, said that any report against the Director General of ISA was treated as a blow to the foundations of the state of B&H and that it was checked who filed the report "because a hybrid war is being waged against this agency" because of which the Court of B&H was informed, as he said.

He confirmed that one of the co-signatories of the order to deliver the recording from the Post Office and that, as far as he knew, he thought that this act was marked confidential.

He explained that he believes that the obtained material should not be destroyed until the "principals" of the anonymous report are determined and that they have learned that the report was not submitted by ISA employees.

Witness Amina Ohranović, an employee of the Municipality of Novi Grad, whose announcement was described by Prosecutor Čavka as "this is a girl who is a threat to the security of B&H" testified about the circumstances in which she appeared on surveillance footage at the BH Post office

- My best friend, Mirela Bubalo, with whom I was inseparable for four years, asked me to hand over those seven envelopes. She told me as if they were allegedly following her and that it would not be good for her to take them away. She told me that these were some reports, but I didn't know who they were against or their content. I was not even interested in that - said Ohranović.

The recordings are classified

She added that she then talked to her friend Mirela Bubalo because she was put in an awkward situation.

- Mirela told me that I didn't have to worry and that the picture didn't show who it was. I did not hear directly from Aljoša Čampara, but I was told on another phone not to worry. I don't know whose phone I was talking to - Ohranović added.

Witness Sakib Vuković, director of the Directorate for Operational Technical Affairs and Support at ISA, was also examined.

Like Buha, he confirmed that the seized recordings were marked secret, but they could not say how they ended up in the media and who gave the recordings to the Istraga.ba portal.

Vuković did not answer the question how the accused Pekić, if he was not an employee of the counter-intelligence department, took over the contact from the BH Post. When asked to whom he was supposed to deliver the recordings, considering that the competent manager was Nermin Mehić, Vuković answered that he does not know.