What Game is the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office Playing: Opposing Re-examination of Alisa Mutap

A continuation of the trial of Ljubo Seferović and his father Bekrija was held at the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo for the criminal offense of serious offenses against public traffic safety and for the criminal offense of failing to provide assistance to a person injured in a traffic accident and the criminal offense of obstructing evidence, in the case of Dženan Memić, reports the Patria agency.

At the continuation of the main hearing, the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office stated its position on the defense's proposed evidence from July 17, 2017.

Prosecutor Šejla Heljić, who is appearing in this case for the first time, explained the position of the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office, stating that the defense's proposals were not concrete. The defense proposed hearing 31 witnesses, 10 experts, 13 material pieces of evidence, and conducting a third reconstruction of the event from February 8, 2016.

Prosecutor Heljić attempted to refute the defense's proposal.

- Out of 54 proposed pieces of evidence, only three relate to the specific offense from the indictment. The prosecution did not hide evidence; it is located in the prosecution's files. Not presenting evidence does not mean hiding it – stated Heljić.

The prosecutor further claimed that the experts who have already appeared before the court have been examined by the defense as well, and it is unclear which facts the defense wishes to refute and whether it would be in favor of the accused.

Heljić stated that the defense's proposed evidence concerns events outside the courtroom, mentioning the report of an ad hoc body that determined a series of irregularities in the conduct of police officers. However, she claims that this did not affect the course of the investigation or the legality of the collected evidence!

Given that the defense also requested that prosecutor Meris Ćato, who is in charge of this case, along with several other prosecutors, be heard, the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office opposes the hearing of Ćato, stating that it "would violate the duty of maintaining professional secrecy".

The Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office also opposes the re-testimony of Alisa Mutap, the sole witness to the fatal event, even though the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office itself claimed that "the testimony of witness Alisa Mutap was decisive for the direction of the investigation". Based on her claims, an Order for Investigation against unknown perpetrators for the criminal offense of murder was issued. They also oppose the testimony of Alisa Mutap's parents, Zijo and Esma, stating that they are not direct witnesses to the event.

Prosecutor Heljić mentioned several times in her explanation that the "defense has changed its strategy". Thus, the Prosecutor's Office also opposes the testimony of Vasvija Sejdović, Ljubo Seferović's common-law wife, who previously refused to testify.

Furthermore, regarding the defense's proposal for an expert examination by a mechanical engineering expert, the Prosecutor's Office opposes it.

The Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office claims that a court expert of this profession has presented their findings and opinion in detail in court based on legal evidence. This has not happened in the proceedings so far, nor has a mechanical engineering expert ever been heard, but rather an expert in mechanoscopic and ballistic examinations from the FUP.

Prosecutor Heljić also made a mistake by claiming that the defense's proposal was for the expert who has already been heard in court, Perović Ivica, to testify on the circumstances of whether a piece of "glass" originates from the right or left side of the vehicle. Here, the Prosecutor's Office made a mistake because the defense requested that a piece of paint found be examined to see if it matches the vehicle that allegedly hit Dženan.

The Prosecutor's Office particularly opposes the expert examination of the official mobile phone of DKPT employee Nebojša Veljović, who photographed Memić on the fatal night. However, it remains unclear how many photos Veljović took, at what moment, whether the body was moved before or after... A new testimony would provide these answers. 

The Prosecutor's Office does not oppose hearing Hasan Dupovac, Elmedin Konaković, Mirhan Bešlija, Asad Fočo, and Emir Milišić as witnesses. It is interesting that Dupovac and Konaković committed a serious breach of official duty, but the Prosecutor's Office did not find a criminal offense in that. Given the passage of time, they will not even face disciplinary action, but their role in the entire case must be clarified. Konaković is a police officer who did not take the recording from the Crystal hotel, and it was later determined that the recording from February 8, 9, and 10 was deleted!

- We do not oppose new expert examinations by traffic and forensic medicine experts, nor the defense's proposal to hear the accused Seferović Ljubo as a witness. The Prosecutor's Office does not oppose a new reconstruction either.

The defense attorney for the accused, Fahrija Karkin, who replaced Rusmir Karkin today, stated that the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office fears the defense's evidence and that the Prosecutor's Office's reference to decisions from 2005 and 2006 is outdated.

- Evidence must be presented, and that is the right of the defense.

He also added that witness Vasvija Sejdović wishes to testify, and on important matters. Karkin proposed that the court make a procedural decision to accept the defense's evidence and to determine the timeline of that evidence.

The continuation of the main hearing is scheduled for September 7, when the court will announce which evidence it accepts for the continuation of the proceedings.