COMMENTARY: What burns is better for BiH judiciary

By Amra Varatanović

Judge of the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Husein Delalić hid from the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council the fact that he had been convicted twice, reported Žurnal. Although his dismissal was requested from the HJPC, the HJPC extended his mandate as an additional judge for another two years in July. The disciplinary proceedings against him have not yet been concluded, and the commission's statement is scheduled for September. By then, Delalić will have already taken up the position entrusted to him by the HJPC. 

This judge's name is also linked to the „Pravda“ case (first defendant Alija Delimustafić), and he confirmed the indictment of the KS Prosecutor's Office without reviewing and inventorying the evidence! Judge Delalić did not even open the packed boxes, and later the KS Prosecutor's Office requested that evidence amounting to 300,000 pages be reviewed. As the then Chief Prosecutor Dalida Burzić vividly described, in the „Pravda“ case, they have a truckload of evidence. To this day, almost three years later, the trial in that case has not begun. 

And Dalida Burzić is no longer in the KS Prosecutor's Office. In February 2019, she was appointed a judge of the BiH Court, even though disciplinary proceedings were underway against her at the same time for inappropriate contact with the father of the murdered young man Dženan Memić, Muriz Memić, and for public statements about the case while the court proceedings were ongoing. 

Burzić is also at the top of the criminal complaint filed by Memić with the BiH Prosecutor's Office and Chief Prosecutor Gordana Tadić for hiding evidence, a false indictment for a traffic accident, and organized crime. In addition to Burzić, the complaint also includes eight prosecutors who worked on the Memić case. To date, four of those nine have left the Sarajevo Prosecutor's Office. Some moved to the State Prosecutor's Office (Ivana Petković and Mladen Furtula), some turned to law (Meris Ćato, the prosecutor handling the Memić case), and Burzić, who is at the BiH Court. Federal prosecutors who supervised the work of the KS Prosecutor's Office in this case were also reported. 

In addition to the established HJPC criteria in the process of appointing judicial office holders, criminal charges, convictions, disciplinary proceedings, compromised integrity, and even political support are clearly included as additional criteria, without which appointments in the judiciary have seemingly become almost the rule without exception. 

After each completed election of judges and prosecutors, the HJPC issues an identical statement:

„When making the Appointment Decision, the HJPC of BiH took into account criteria such as: professional knowledge, work experience and work results; professional competence based on past career achievements; ability to perform duties impartially, conscientiously, diligently, decisively and responsibly within the scope of the position for which they are applying; relationships with colleagues, conduct outside of work, professional impartiality and reputation, and management experience.“

It should be recalled that a letter from several prosecutors of the KS Prosecutor's Office regarding Dalida Burzić's irregularities while she was Chief Prosecutor was sent to the HJPC, which the HJPC did not comment on. Regardless of everything, Burzić was appointed a judge. 

A criminal complaint was also filed against the President of the HJPC, Milan Tegeltija, at the beginning of July, signed by 1,300 citizens of BiH due to the video recording „Potkivanje“ (Bribing), an affair in which  Tegeltija is seen talking with businessman Nermin Alešević in a catering facility about a case previously reported to the KS Prosecutor's Office while Dalida Burzić was still the Chief Prosecutor. Tegeltija was charged with the criminal offense of „failure to report a criminal offense or perpetrator“ under Article 230, Paragraph (2) of the BiH Criminal Code. 

„The accused committed the said criminal offense by knowing about the commission of the criminal offense 'Receiving a reward or other form of benefit for trading in influence' under Article 219, Paragraph (2), and did not report it. The accused was aware and informed that Marko Pandža, an inspector of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA), was committing the criminal offense 'Receiving a reward or other form of benefit for trading in influence' under Article 219, Paragraph (2) by using his official or social or influential position or other status to cause a public official or responsible person in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely Milan Tegeltija, President of the HJPC of BiH, to perform or not perform an official or other action," the report stated. 

The BiH Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation in the „Potkivanje“ case against Alešević and Pandža, while Tegeltija was heard as a witness. The final prosecutorial decision in this case is still unknown, except that the investigation is ongoing. 

There are still a few months left until the end of the monitoring of the judiciary by the independent EU expert Reinhard Priebe, who has visited BiH several times and held numerous interviews in judicial institutions, police agencies, as well as with individuals from the civil sector and citizens who spoke about their own cases in which the BiH judiciary has completely failed. The results of Priebe's analysis should be known at the end of November, after which it will be clear whether a red light will be turned off or just turned on in BiH.