Lawyers heading to Strasbourg: Novalić's right to a fair trial violated, and he received only declaratory satisfaction!

(Patria) - Senad Pećanin, Fadil Novalić's lawyer, held a press conference in Sarajevo where he presented the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on his client's appeal. Although the defense teams have not yet received the official ruling, Novalić's legal team has analyzed it based on the publicly announced decision.

Fadil Novalić's legal team also announced an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights today, but they could not definitively say whether it would be possible to reopen the proceedings if the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina decides to suspend the proceedings for Fikret Hodžić, or acquit him in a retrial.

"We cannot speak based on assumptions. We have to see what the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina will decide in Fikret Hodžić's case," said Pećanin.

To briefly remind, Novalić, the former federal Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SDA), is currently in prison for the "Respirators" case, where he will serve four years. He went to prison on March 22, 2024. In that case, besides him, the former director of the Federal Civil Protection Administration (FUCZ) Fahrudin Solak and the owner of the company Srebrena malina Fikret Hodžić, as well as the legal entity Srebrena malina, were convicted. The federal Minister of Finance Jelka Milićević was also charged along with them (the only one not convicted, editor's note).

The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina accepted Fikret Hodžić's appeal, and he was released from prison, with his case returned to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a new decision. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court partially accepted the appeals of Novalić and Solak, in the context of public officials' statements.

"In our appeal to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we cited 39 decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and 17 decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We were aware that the court would not establish new practice in this case, but it had to adhere to the already established practice. The Constitutional Court had to ensure the principles of the rule of law, constitutionality, legal certainty, and equality, which it clearly failed to do here, as pointed out by judge Ćeman in his dissenting opinion, when he stated that the principle of equality in treatment was violated.

The Constitutional Court states that 'the appellants could have foreseen that they could be convicted as co-perpetrators, even though they were not charged with co-perpetration in the indictment but with association, for which they were acquitted', says Pećanin.

He also pointed out that the court states that 'although some facts and circumstances were proven by indications', and asks if a verdict can be based on indications?

"We listed 12 human rights violations. The court did not consider some of them at all in its decision, such as blanket regulations that ceased to be valid more than 20 years ago, namely the Law on Government from 1994, which the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to, and the Law on Public Administration, which ceased to be valid in 2005.

I will remind the public that Judge Valerija Galić was the secretary of the Office for Legislation of the Government of FBiH when these laws were amended," states Pećanin.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina determined that Fadil Novalić's right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was violated by the proceedings of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not annul the verdict but makes a conclusion that Novalić has, and I quote, 'sufficient satisfaction from the declaratory decision on the violation of that right'. How cynical, how unlawful, how arbitrary this conclusion of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is, will be best illustrated by the verdict in 'Preston v. United Kingdom'. In that case, the Court ordered a new trial because statements by politicians created bias against the accused," says Pećanin.

Incidentally, Pećanin began his address with the following words:

"We are pleased that the Constitutional Court has confirmed what the defense has been pointing out from the beginning, namely that Fadil Novalić, the former Prime Minister, did not take, did not appropriate, did not steal a single KM, not a single fening in the process of procuring respirators. Due to the media and political campaign of lies, deception, and manipulation, coordinated by the US Ambassador to BiH Michael Murphy, I want to reiterate that we are glad that the Constitutional Court, after the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also decided this, has confirmed that Novalić is not a thief and that the contract for the procurement of respirators was concluded by FUCZ, not him, during the FUCZ proceedings."

Answering about Murphy's motives for doing such a thing, Pećanin notes that the SDA wanted to be overthrown through Novalić, and that he is writing a book in which all motives will be revealed.

He also continued, the Constitutional Court has confirmed what "Fadil Novalić's lawyers have persistently warned about during the court proceedings, namely that Fadil Novalić's right to a fair trial has been violated".

"Unfortunately, with these two mentioned facts, the reasons for satisfaction end," admitted Pećanin, assessing the Constitutional Court's decision as "merely a continuation of illegal verdicts to Novalić's detriment".

He also read the dissenting opinion of judge Mirsad Ćeman in the Constitutional Court's decision, who was against the ruling, and which, in short, states that this judge believes that "it is impossible not to notice that the main concept on which the indictment against all appellants was developed - association for the purpose of committing criminal offenses - was not proven for any appellant."

"That concept significantly, if not decisively, influenced the construction of the indictment, and even though it was dismissed as unproven, it created an atmosphere during the trial," said judge Ćeman.

He also recalled the earlier dissenting opinion of judge Branko Perić, but added that the Constitutional Court, despite all of the above, did not annul the verdict. Pećanin also revealed that the appeal for Fadil Novalić was submitted on 12 grounds, including the number of violations of the law, the Constitution of our country, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.

Finally, he pointed out the contradictions in the reasoning of the decision given by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"First, they state that the Court determined the responsibility of appellant 4 (Fadil Novalić, editor's note) who had a decisive role in the selection of the first appellant. Then, they write that appellants 1 and 2 were not supposed to conclude the purchase agreement, and that appellant 4, who had an indirect role in the selection of the first appellant, also had responsibility. These are two completely opposing positions. Which one to believe? The difference is huge between someone being a key player and the claim that someone was merely a supporting player in making the decision."