Jahić: Through the 'Respirators' case, legal certainty was cremated, the media still informed about everything before the parties and lawyers!

(Patria) - The 'Fadil Novalić et al.' case remains in the public spotlight. The media, and consequently the public, learn details even before the parties in the proceedings are informed of the decisions made!? So Elmir Jahić, one of the lawyers from Fadil Novalić's defense team, could not confirm to Patria the information published by some media last night, that Novalić's appeal against the decision of Judge Stupar Braco, which rejected Novalić's request for a postponement of the execution of the sentence, had been dismissed.

"Yes, I correctly say 'decision of Judge Stupar Braco', because Judge Stupar Braco decided on the request, not the Criminal Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, pursuant to the provisions of the Law on Execution of Criminal Sanctions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is competent to decide on the request for postponement after the convicted person receives the referral document. However, it is very important to clarify the key fact. The actions of Braco Stupar in the proceedings on the request of Novalić Fadil for postponement of the execution of the sentence are illegal for several reasons, namely because Judge Stupar Braco, during the investigation and before the indictment against Fadil Novalić et al. was filed and confirmed, was once the presiding judge of the panel outside the main trial that decided on an appeal against the decision of the preliminary proceedings judge, and another time he was a member of another panel outside the main trial that decided on an appeal against the decision of the preliminary proceedings judge:

Judge Braco Stupar was also a member of the first-instance panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina that rendered the first-instance verdict in the case of Novalić Fadil et al.", says Jahić.

On March 2, 2024, the lawyer, acting as the attorney for Novalić Fadil, filed a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor against Judge Stupar Braco due to reasonable suspicion that the actions described in the complaint, some of which include Judge Stupar's actions in the panel outside the main trial during the investigation phase, contain elements of a disciplinary offense under Article 56, Paragraph 1 of the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council.

"I also informed the acting President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Minka Kreho, about this via email on March 2. It is very important to know that the complaint was filed before Fadil Novalić's legal team received the decision rejecting the request, and learned that Judge Stupar Braco, the judge against whom Fadil Novalić's lawyer had filed a complaint, decided on Novalić Fadil's request. In such a situation, can anyone believe in Stupar's objective and impartial work and that Judge Stupar will make a lawful decision? Of course not, and it is precisely for these reasons that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina provide for the mandatory recusal of a judge from proceedings when we have a situation like this one," notes Jahić.

Judge Stupar should have requested his own recusal, but he did not.

"President Kreho should have acted, as she was timely informed of the complaint, but evidently she did not. Therefore, there is reasonable suspicion of direct intentional conduct by Judge Stupar. In addition to all this, an additional question is, on what principle was Novalić's request assigned precisely to Stupar? Consequently, if the information published last night is confirmed as accurate, and I sincerely hope it will not be, because I expect the acting president of the court to try to restore at least a little dignity to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to accept the appeal and annul the decision made by the judge who should have recused himself due to suspicion of bias, in that case, I can announce that Fadil Novalić's legal team, with the aim of restoring the dignity of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and protecting the rights and legal interests of Fadil Novalić, will file a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor also against Minka Kreho, and due to reasonable suspicion that the actions of both Kreho and Stupar contain elements of a criminal offense, will file criminal charges with the competent prosecutor's office," notes Jahić.

He adds that Novalić's legal team respects the presumption of innocence, unlike those who were supposed to respect the presumption of innocence of Fadil Novalić but did not.

Lawyer Jahić is not publicly known as a person who comments on proceedings in which he is not involved, but he says he became part of Fadil Novalić's legal team immediately after the second-instance verdict was rendered, and that during that period they achieved victories in two battles.

„I immediately requested access to the case file from the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The law allows me to do so, but not prosecutor Džermin Pašić, who rejected me four times, claiming that I had no right to it because the files had been submitted to 'previous lawyers', but when he saw that I would not give up, he responded affirmatively to my fifth request. Now I ask myself how I had no right four times, but I did the fifth time. Is that an abuse of position?

It is also indicative that Judge Braco Stupar promptly issued an order to destroy permanently confiscated items, but was prevented from doing so by Fadil Novalić's legal team, by issuing an order to postpone the destruction for six months.

„Such haste to destroy evidence, even though there is no legal deadline within which this must be done, certainly raises suspicion. Why such haste? Perhaps because we will determine that there are grounds for reopening the proceedings in favor of the convicted person," added Jahić.

Jahić particularly wants to emphasize that he filed the complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council against Braco Stupar as early as March 2, when he did not even know which judge from the Criminal Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina would decide on his client's request, and not, as some media reported during the day, that the complaint was filed because Stupar rejected the request.

He notes that they have the energy and will for further legal battles, especially since it has been undoubtedly established that the verdict was rendered by a court that was not competent for the acts for which Novalić and others were convicted.

“After it was established that there was no association for the purpose of committing the criminal offense of money laundering for which Novalić et al. were acquitted, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina should have dismissed the indictment for lack of jurisdiction regarding the other criminal offenses prescribed by the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and referred the case to the materially competent court.

This must not become judicial practice. This is the first half, and our legal battle continues," adds Jahić.

He also emphasizes that it is evident that the public has been manipulated by misinformation from the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that the legal team will present evidence and make it available to the public (if they are not confidential documents) in order to 'heal' the public with valid information and show that in this case, legal certainty has not only been brought into question but has been cremated.

"We must know that it is a fundamental right of every individual to be informed of what they are charged with and what evidence exists in those proceedings, but that was not the case in this process either, because specifically Novalić Fadil was convicted of a criminal offense for which no investigation was conducted, no indictment was confirmed, and he was never able to make a statement about it during the investigation phase, and consequently to defend himself," concludes Jahić, emphasizing that Novalić's right to a fair trial guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights was violated.

(A. Čorbo-Zećo)