Mutual accusations of inaction: Prosecutor's Office and Court of BiH wage a "war" of statements

The Prosecutor's Office of BiH is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Court of BiH to release suspects in the operations codenamed "Meso" and "Gibraltar" to defend themselves from freedom, reports the BH news agency Patria. 

- We are surprised by statements that the Court was not familiar with the evidence and conducted activities, and we remind the public that both of these activities were carried out by orders of the Court of BiH, which issued orders for searches and the implementation of activities in which the mentioned suspects were arrested - stated the Prosecutor's Office of BiH.

In the case of Lijanović et al., the Court of BiH had already ordered and extended custody, so the Court itself revoked its decision yesterday.

The Prosecutor's Office of BiH believes that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspects in both cases, who are under investigation for multi-million criminal offenses, and in the Gibraltar case, illegalities and financial malversations were also established by the European Union countries, Austria and Slovenia. 

We believe that these events jeopardize the fight against corruption and do not send a good message to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina - the statement reads.

Also, the Prosecutor's Office of BiH states that there will still be no untouchables and that this will not jeopardize the fight against organized crime, corruption and terrorism, and once again noted that there are and will be no fabricated processes in the prosecutor's office.

The Court of BiH tonight issued a statement to the public regarding the comments of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina on this court's decision not to accept the proposal for detention of suspects in the case of Neven Kulenović and others.

In the statement, they state that "the practice of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH to express dissatisfaction with the Court's decision through the media is increasingly frequent," which, they say, is a very worrying phenomenon.

"The Public Information Office of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH is used to provide incorrect information about the specific circumstances of individual cases, without knowledge of the legal and factual aspects of the case presented at the hearings of the Court of BiH. This attempts to exert pressure on judges, mislead the public about the facts and the law, and most dangerously, undermine citizens' trust in the ability of the judicial authorities to work. Such practice should be subject to consideration by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH, as the body responsible for ensuring the professional work of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH," the statement of the Court of BiH states.

"It is true that the Court of BiH was aware of the activities that the Prosecutor's Office of BiH was conducting in the 'Gibraltar' operation, and that it issued orders for searches. This fact, however, does not mean that the searches approved by the Court will actually yield appropriate evidence sufficient to order detention of the suspects. We note that detention, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, is the strictest measure to ensure the presence of suspects at trial, and it is ordered exceptionally, in cases strictly prescribed by law, for which a significant amount of incriminating evidence must exist.

Furthermore, it is necessary to know that the Court is not informed of the results of search warrants, as they are submitted directly to the Prosecutor's Office, and all evidence collected from such searches is sent by police agencies to the Prosecutor's Office, not to the Court. The Court first becomes acquainted with them when considering a proposal for detention, a plea agreement, or when confirming an indictment. The Court certainly enabled the Prosecutor's Office of BiH to conduct the investigation, but responsibility for how it was done belongs exclusively to the Prosecutor's Office of BiH.

It is not enough for the Prosecutor's Office of BiH alone to believe that there is evidence to prosecute the suspects; it must also present such evidence on the basis of which the Court will be convinced that there is not only reasonable suspicion but also justified reasons for ordering detention. In this specific case, no evidence was offered that would be sufficient for ordering the strictest measure, the measure of detention," the extensive explanation of the Court states.

The Court, as they point out, was informed about the alleged extensive documentation found in the investigation "only through the media." 

"If such documentation exists, it should have been submitted to the Court of BiH, and the prosecutor, during the hearing, had to present evidence for each suspect individually to substantiate reasonable suspicion. Here, it should be particularly noted that these are criminal offenses related to financial crime, which cannot be proven without a financial expert opinion that has not been done, but only announced. For the purpose of the proceedings, it is necessary for financial experts to give an opinion on whether the financial transactions were fictitious or not. It is expected that financial expert opinions are done during the investigation, i.e., before submitting a proposal for detention to the Court. This is the minimum of professionalism expected from a judicial institution at the state level," the public statement emphasized.

Judges of the Court of BiH, when making decisions, must evaluate the evidence they have access to, which in this specific case was done at the public hearing for ordering detention. Based on the evidence offered in this specific case: police reports (which cannot be used as evidence), a blank unsigned contract, and documentation in a foreign language submitted without translation, the Court could not conclude that ordering detention was justified, they stated.

"It is certainly good that media representatives attended yesterday's hearing and could see for themselves how the prosecutor presented the proposal for detention and what she offered to the Court. Such unpreparedness and superficiality are unacceptable and do not represent a decisive fight against crime. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the Court in this case did not decide on the guilt of the suspects or on the so-called 'release to freedom,' as it is attempted to be portrayed, bearing in mind that the subject of the decision was the proposal for detention for the first time," they say in the Court of BiH.

At the end of the public statement, the Court of BiH sharply states:

"It would be good for the Prosecutor's Office of BiH, instead of continuously misleading the public with daily statements, to direct its strength and energy towards thorough investigations, application of current laws, and education of state prosecutors. Because if this does not happen, they will continue to seek blame for their own failures in others. Finally, the Court emphasizes its commitment to the fight against all forms of crime, but exclusively with full respect for the law. Anything else would be contrary to the proclaimed principles of strengthening the rule of law and legal certainty. The Court will not change established standards and legally prescribed procedures for criminal prosecution in order to create an image of success and unrealistic statistical indicators."