HDZ's Grubeša wrote to all judges of the Court in Strasbourg, seeking a reaction to Faris Vehabović's statements

SARAJEVO, (Patria) - "Mr. Vehabović has been appearing in the media and at round tables for weeks, if not months, as a political spokesperson and advocate of the unitarist policy of a recognizable political option in BiH, interpreting the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in a way that neglects the provisions of the BiH Constitution, and all contrary to the very nature of multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina and I am free to say in a way that the decisions of this esteemed court cannot be interpreted. No one should interpret decisions, especially not an individual from your ranks, in a political manner, and thus endanger the quality of court decisions, and therefore the rule of law," wrote the BiH Minister of Justice Josip Grubeša (HDZ) in a letter sent to all judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In short, HDZ Minister Grubeša is dissatisfied with the public statements of Faris Vehabović, a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, who, in two authorial texts for Istraga.ba and in several TV appearances, explained the key judgments of that court concerning the electoral legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Here is the sentence that is particularly problematic for HDZ BiH.

"The media statements of Judge Vehabović, I quote: In the nineties, one had to agree to constituent peoples because it was a transitional solution, BiH must enable everyone to participate in the electoral process without giving privileges to constituent peoples. There should be no ethnic determinants. Not Serb, Croat, Bosniak, but a citizen," should not be subject to observation and serve as an honor to a judge of such a judicial institution," wrote Grubeša.

The Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina believes that these statements by Judge Faris Vehabović create an illusion and attempt to impose the belief that this is also the position of the European Court of Human Rights.

"I decided to take this step to inform you about this, in our opinion, inappropriate and harmful behavior of Judge Vehabović, while being convinced that your professional discourse will know how to recognize it and take appropriate steps to prevent further damage to the reputation of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the ongoing reform process," stated Grubeša in the letter sent on November 2nd of this year.

With this letter, HDZ, in fact, asked the heads of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for their judge not to mention or interpret judgments in public in the future that have not been implemented, and which are the basis for negotiations on changes to the electoral legislation in BiH.

We remind you that in an authorial text published on the portals Istraga.ba, politicki.ba, and raport.ba, Judge Vehabović analyzed the proposed amendments to the Election Law of BiH, which relate to the "formation" of the so-called floating third electoral unit.

"With the proposed amendments to the election law," Vehabović stated, "new discrimination is being introduced.".

"If the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are to be sincerely implemented, then it is necessary to take a stance that will not be exclusive, but will adhere to principles with which there can be no compromise and must not be. And the principles are contained in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and respect for the right to free elections and the prohibition of discrimination from the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also recognized as a constitutional right established by Article II of the BiH Constitution. There can be no compromise with these principles, and it is quite certain that a modus can be found by seeking a balance between the civic and the ethnic, only, the question is whether the intentions are sincere and whether there is a willingness to take these steps," wrote Vehabović in the text published on October 27th of this year, five days before Minister Grubeša decided to write a letter against him.

In an article published on May 7th of this year, Vehabović also touched upon the key judgments from Strasbourg. We recall the most important statements from that text.

"As far as electoral legislation is concerned, the arguments are very clear, and instead of stating my personal opinion on this topic, it is enough to quote just one statement from the Zornić judgment to make it completely clear from which positions those who are guided by legal arguments in approaching BiH's obligations to establish a society where law is respected and where we are all equally responsible for our actions are acting. At the same time, a couple of (mostly incorrect) theses are always introduced into the public space around which long and unnecessary debates are then conducted. The first incorrect thesis is that it is possible to change the Election Law without changing the BiH Constitution. In paragraph 41 of this judgment, it is stated: "In accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, the Sejdić and Finci judgment is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, which has regularly monitored developments at the domestic level and called for a swift end to the existing situation... It has always considered it necessary to adopt a number of amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as its electoral legislation, in order to implement this judgment." Otherwise, Article 46 of the European Convention applies when there is a systematic violation of rights that cannot be resolved by an individual act, and in exceptional situations, Article 46 is applied. In this case, the Court clearly recognized that the basis for discrimination is Articles IV and V of the BiH Constitution and that the Election Law was adopted based on precisely such discriminatory provisions of the Constitution and that the problem cannot be resolved without amending both acts. The second incorrect thesis is that this problem can be solved with additional guarantees for constituent peoples. The answer can again be found in paragraph 43 of the Zornić judgment, which literally states: "In the Sejdić and Finci judgment, the Court noted that at the time when the contested constitutional provisions were adopted, there was a very fragile truce, and that the purpose of those provisions was to stop the brutal conflict marked by genocide and "ethnic cleansing". The nature of that conflict was such that it was necessary to agree to "constituent peoples" in order to ensure peace. However, now, more than eighteen years after the end of the tragic conflict, there can be no reason to maintain the contested constitutional provisions. The Court expects a democratic order to be established without further delay. Given the need to ensure genuine political democracy, the Court considers that the time has come for a political system that will ensure every citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina the right to run in elections for the Presidency and the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic affiliation and without giving special rights to constituent peoples while excluding minorities or citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina," wrote Vehabović in an authorial text for Istraga.ba.