Fadil Novalić's legal team has new findings: Call to search the TCMS server used by the BiH Prosecutor's Office

(Patria) - On August 9, information was released to the public that members of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA), acting on the order of the BiH Prosecutor's Office, are searching the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, specifically searching the server of the Court Case Management System (CMS) of the BiH Court, for automatic case assignment, i.e., formation of trial panels.

On this occasion, Fadil Novalić's legal team issued a statement, which we are transmitting in full:

Regarding the aforementioned activities, Mr. Fadil Novalić's legal team expressed support for the activities undertaken by SIPA members, but also expressed concern that they are acting on the order of the BiH Prosecutor's Office. This is considering that Mr. Novalić's legal team, among other things, based the criminal complaint filed against the former Chief Prosecutor of the BiH Prosecutor's Office, Ms. Gordana Tadić, on suspicion that the said person committed, among other things, the criminal offense of "Abuse of Office," on the fact that the appointed prosecutor team Pašić/Hukeljić, who was evidently "suitable," was personally selected and formed manually, not in the manner and according to the procedure defined by the Rulebook on Automatic Case Assignment.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Novalić's legal team called for the TCMS server, i.e., the server used by the BiH Prosecutor's Office, to be searched, especially since the basis for suspicion of the legal team was confirmed in a written letter by Mr. Džermin Pašić, a prosecutor at the BiH Prosecutor's Office, who unequivocally stated in the letter that he was appointed to the prosecution team formed in the case known as "Respirators" by the decision of the Chief Prosecutor of the BiH Prosecutor's Office, Ms. Gordana Tadić.

-Furthermore, during the investigation conducted by Mr. Novalić's legal team, we obtained evidence proving that the judicial panel that delivered the guilty verdict in the "Novalić et al." case refers to the SAME judicial practice that they used as a basis for acquittal in another case, in which they delivered an acquittal verdict within less than a month.

Specifically, Mr. Novalić's legal team found identical paragraphs in the verdict where the panel delivered an acquittal and in which the panel states: "The appellate panel also considers it appropriate to emphasize that an appellate verdict is a decision rendered in an appeal procedure, and regarding its reasoning, it is sufficient to refer to it, i.e., it contains agreement (or disagreement) with the claims and assessments of the lower court in the sense that the appellate court, in explaining its decision, indicates the acceptability (unacceptability) of the lower court's positions and assessments, or its findings with which it agrees (or disagrees) (see European Court, Gracica Ruiz v. Spain, 1999-I, 31 EHRR 589 GC).

This means that it is not necessary to respond to and explain every ground of appeal, but it is sufficient that the second-instance court has considered the fundamental issues that the appeals challenge and that are decisive in making the final decision on the existence of a criminal offense and criminal liability (see Constitutional Court, decisions no. U-62/01 of April 5, 2002, and AP-352/04 of March 23, 2005)."

While the judicial panel in the verdict that convicted Mr. Fadil Novalić states: "The appellate panel considers it appropriate to emphasize that an appellate verdict is a decision rendered in an appeal procedure, and regarding its reasoning, it is sufficient to refer to it, i.e., it contains agreement (or disagreement) with the claims and assessments of the lower court in the sense that the appellate court, in explaining its decision, indicates the acceptability (unacceptability) of the lower court's positions and assessments, or its findings with which it agrees (or disagrees) (see European Court, Gracica Ruiz v. Spain, 1999-I, 31 EHRR 589 GC).

This means that it is not necessary to respond to and explain every ground of appeal, but it is sufficient that the second-instance court has considered the fundamental issues that the appeals challenge and that are decisive in making the final decision on the existence of a criminal offense and criminal liability (see Constitutional Court, decisions no. U-62/01 of April 5, 2002, and AP-352/04 of March 23, 2005)."

It was incredible for the legal team to discover that there are identical paragraphs in two different verdicts by the same judges of the BiH Court in the Novalić case and another case that have no common ground.

Due to all of the above, and considering that the search of the BiH Court's CMS server was carried out due to the existence of a founded suspicion, not just a basis for suspicion, which founded suspicion was determined by the BiH Prosecutor's Office, Mr. Novalić's legal team is CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM, THE RULE OF LAW, AND LEGAL SECURITY, based on information from some media outlets that have helped Mr. Novalić's legal team with their findings and indicated and confirmed the legal team's basis for suspicion that there is a suspicion that pressure was exerted on the judicial panel that convicted Mr. Novalić.

We point out that both the first-instance and second-instance verdicts are based on the provisions of blanket regulations that ceased to be in effect more than 20 years ago and contain contradictions that the law and the legal system do not recognize. The aforementioned facts indicate that the judicial panel that convicted Mr. Novalić refers to the same judicial practice that they used as a basis for acquittal in another verdict that was delivered a month after the guilty verdict against Mr. Novalić.

Due to all of the above, to which the legal team has come to these findings, for which reasons we express concern for the legal system, because our basis for suspicion has also been confirmed by some media outlets, that the judicial panel was selected contrary to the automatic selection in order to convict Mr. Novalić. Therefore, the legal team asks, and calls on the competent institutions to investigate how the panel that tried Mr. Novalić was selected, whether the judges of the BiH Court "copy" verdicts under someone's pressure or prepare them in each specific case, which is unlikely, given the identical paragraphs above.

Following the aforementioned basis for suspicion reached by the legal team, due to the basis for suspicion, we will file a criminal complaint against Mr. Debevec as well, in order to investigate whether the case known as "Respirators" was assigned to suitable judges of the BiH Court, bypassing the CMS system - it was announced.