While awaiting the finality of the Kovačević verdict

By: Dr. sci. Enver Išerić

"In the verdict of the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court decided by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) to the European Convention on Human Rights because Kovačević is not adequately represented in the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Court stated that Kovačević essentially complains about the power-sharing arrangements, that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a true democracy, but an "ethocracy" in which ethnicity – not citizenship – is key to securing power and controlling resources, and in which the three dominant ethnic groups control state institutions to achieve their interests, and all others are second-class citizens."

The news of this verdict echoed through the Bosnian sky with such force that proponents of human rights violations suffered a classic knockout, shock, and disbelief that their manipulations, human rights violations, and further fanning of hatred and ethnic divisions among the peoples and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina had come to an end.

Therefore, a "state of emergency" was declared in their ranks. All their forces, both legal and political, were mobilized to obstruct or otherwise hinder, at least temporarily, the finality of the verdict.

Then, the "agents" of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the European Court of Human Rights come onto the scene (despite their legitimacy being questionable – expired mandates, illegal appointments for short periods and more times than allowed) who are preparing a request to refer this case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, as provided for by Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Their work on preparing the request for review of the verdict (referral to the Grand Chamber) was carried out completely non-transparently and contrary to the valid laws of our country. Neither the Minister for Human Rights, under whose ministry the agents operate, was consulted, nor did the Council of Ministers make any decision on this matter.

In the meantime, information emerged that the Deputy Minister for Human Rights, Ms. Duška Jurišić, had a conversation with the agents regarding this case and that she gave them full support.

All these claims were denied by Duška Jurišić's lawyer, stating, "In this regard, we hereby draw the public's attention to the fact that Duška Jurišić, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, neither formally nor essentially has, nor can have, any jurisdiction over the actions of the agents of Bosnia and Herzegovina representing the state in cases before the European Court of Human Rights.”

"It is true that the agents of Bosnia and Herzegovina are employed in the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees, that they receive their salaries through the Ministry and enjoy other employment rights. However, everything related to their actions before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg falls under the jurisdiction of the Council of Ministers of BiH, and Duška Jurišić – as Deputy Minister – cannot influence it in any way, even if she wanted to," states lawyer Bilić, who represents Duška Jurišić.

However, we must state that lawyer Bilić is completely correct in the above-quoted statement. But can we ask another very important question, not only to the Deputy Minister of Human Rights but also to the Minister himself. Did Duška Jurišić, in relation to this issue, warn her minister and request his action towards both the Council of Ministers and the European Court of Human Rights? If not, does she bear part of the responsibility for obstructing this verdict, which is important for human rights in our country? Did she raise her voice when it was refused, or rather, prevented, to discuss this issue at the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Did she react when the Chairperson of the Council of Ministers unilaterally and on her own initiative, without a decision from the Council of Ministers, sent a letter to the European Court of Human Rights? Was the Deputy Minister, through her meetings with the "agents", aware or unaware that she was legitimizing the very questionable status of these same "agents" before the European Court of Human Rights, which could also be interpreted as a form of support for them, causing damage to human rights in our country?

Deputy Minister Duška Jurišić was obliged to do all of this. And Minister Sevlid Hurtić certainly should and had to do it. And as far as the public knows, neither of them has done anything. And they are obliged to protect the human rights of our citizens. It cannot be an excuse that Duška Jurišić "neither formally nor essentially has, nor can have, any jurisdiction over the actions of the agents of Bosnia and Herzegovina representing the state in cases before the European Court of Human Rights", as her lawyer stated.

If that is the case, then our deputy ministers are completely redundant in the organization of government. But that is not the case. Because we have witnessed public statements by the Deputy Minister of Defense, during which he expressed his disagreement with the positions and actions of his minister. In doing so, of course, we are not delving into the reasons and justification for stating claims and positions.

Therefore, it would be logical, moral, legal, and constitutional for Minister Hurtić and his Deputy Jurišić to resign from their positions. Or for one of the representatives who care about human rights and the European Convention, as well as the verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights, to demand their dismissal.

And we will wait for the finality of the "Kovačević" verdict, because we see no reason why the vote ratio in the Grand Chamber would not be at least close to the vote ratio in the Chamber that delivered this verdict, which was decided by six judges with one dissenting opinion.

Certainly, all the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion were presented in the proceedings before the court, which rejected the objections of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and determined that all attempts to file legal remedies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e., a constitutional appeal, would be in vain, because the Constitutional Court makes its decisions based on the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which contains discriminatory provisions that are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which should be directly applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as stipulated by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is also indicated by the practice of the Constitutional Court so far, which has rejected all appellants who appealed to the Constitutional Court regarding these issues, i.e., the violation of their right to vote and be elected.

And if we were to talk about the abuse of the right of individual petition, then we could say that Bosnia and Herzegovina, or its "agents", abused this right by seeking a review of the verdict, wanting to nullify the rights and freedoms provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as stipulated by Article 17 of the Convention: "No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their further limitation than is provided for in the Convention."

No matter what intrigues you weave, human rights are universal values of modern and progressive humanity. And the European Court of Human Rights is a court of experts and professionals. There are no party bosses there who "muddle and obstruct" in court.