Court President Explains Reasons for Not Issuing Protection Order for Murdered Nizama

(Patria) - Following the tragedy and triple murder in Gradačac that occurred on Friday, citizens sought answers to numerous questions about the system that protects them, the police, and the decisions of the authorities. Following reports of Judge Lejla Numanović's omissions, the President of the Gradačac Court, Slobodanka Kojić, has now spoken out, stating that the Court did not have sufficient evidence to issue a protection measure. The evidence, as they stated, is collected by the police.

“A decision of this court, number 28 0 Pr 081870 23 Zm dated 07.08.2023, has appeared on social media, rejecting the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tuzla Canton, Police Administration Gradačac, for the issuance of a protection measure prohibiting harassment and stalking of a person exposed to violence, and a protection measure prohibiting approaching the victim of violence. Pages 2 and 3 of the same decision, on which judge Lejla Numanović explained the reasons for rejecting the protection measure, have not appeared on the same networks. The court is unaware of who provided this decision to the media, nor the reason why only the first page was published, but in any case, the media did not receive this decision from the court,” announced Slobodanka Kojić, President of the Municipal Court in Gradačac, today.

“I want to emphasize that domestic violence was reported on 27.07.2023, as stated in the official record of the Gradačac Police Administration under number: 08-06/12-2-1826/23 dated 27.07.2023. From the same record, it follows that Hećimović Nizama, daughter of Nusret, reported her common-law husband Sulejmanović Nermin for physically assaulting her on 03/04.08.2023 in their family home in Mionica 3, Gradačac, where she had moved out from him, after which she received several threats and turned off her phone. On 04.08.2023, around 15:40, a police patrol acted on the above-mentioned report and found Sulejmanović Nermin, who denied the allegations in the report and stated to the patrol that he had not threatened Hećimović Nizama nor had any contact with her,” the statement further reads.

It is then stated that on August 7, the Gradačac Police Administration made a record of the witness testimony (Nizama Hećimović).

“On 07.08.2023, the Gradačac Police Administration made a record of the testimony of witness Hećimović Nizama, who invoked the legal benefits of Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As stated in the testimony, she did not wish to give statements about the incident, but she said that she wanted a restraining order against her common-law husband, prohibiting him from approaching her and harassing her until the situation regarding their common child is resolved through the competent institutions, and that she no longer wants to live with Sulejmanović Nermin, considering that he is a violent person, who threatened her by phone calls to return as soon as possible and that he would find her wherever she was, so she fears his presence. On 07.08.2023, a request for the issuance of a protection measure was submitted to the court along with an official record and the statement of the injured party Hećimović Nizama.”

Sulejmanović had physically assaulted Nizama several times in the days prior.

“From the request, it follows that on 03.08.2023, Sulejmanović Nermin physically assaulted his wife Hećimović Nizama, hitting her several times in various parts of the body, causing visible injuries to Hećimović Nizama in the facial area and other parts of the body, which were clearly visible when the report was filed. She did not seek medical attention for these injuries. When she left their shared home, Sulejmanović Nermin threatened her via phone calls and exerted pressure on both Hećimović Nizama and her immediate family and friends.”

“Judge Lejla Numanović issued a decision rejecting the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tuzla Canton, Police Administration Gradačac, for the issuance of a protection measure. In her decision, she explicitly stated that domestic violence can only exist if it is determined that the perpetrator, through their actions or threats, has caused physical or sexual pain, suffering, or economic damage to a family member. Since, in this specific case, the family member refused to testify, the court had no other evidence to establish that violence had been committed against her. The police, who collect evidence, did not provide the court with medical documentation or photographic documentation, and in their request, they stated and emphasized that the injured party, Hećimović Nizama, the victim of violence, had visible injuries. Even if she did not seek medical attention, the police should have and could have created photographic documentation, which would serve as evidence.

The injured party also stated, as indicated in the police request, that the perpetrator Sulejmanović Nermin had threatened her and her immediate and extended family via phone. The police should have and could have, if nothing else, created photographic documentation of these messages sent to Hećimović Nizama, messages sent to members of her immediate and extended family, taken statements from family members, and requested call logs from Sulejmanović Nermin for all calls made to the victim and her family members.”

They further state that the Court did not have sufficient evidence to issue a protection measure, and for that reason, the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tuzla Canton was rejected.

“The Court did not have sufficient evidence to issue a protection measure and for that reason rejected the request of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tuzla Canton, Police Administration Gradačac. However, I want to inform you that the collection of evidence: photographic documentation, phone records, message content, and other evidence are not the role of the court, meaning the court does not collect evidence. Instead, for the court, the police collect evidence when issuing protection measures. When making a decision on a protection measure, the judge does not take statements from either the perpetrator or the victim, nor are they present.

– From all of the above, I believe that the attacks directed at judge Lejla Numanović, as well as the court, and the comments on social media are unjustified.

This notification may be too extensive, but it had to be so in order to inform the public/media about how the procedure works and what the role of the police and the court is in the procedure, i.e., who makes the decision and who collects the evidence,” added Kojić and stated:

“On this occasion, I want to express my condolences to the families of the deceased, and with this notification, I want to send a message to citizens/media that the court can only make its decisions based on the law, and before making a decision, it must establish all facts that must be supported by evidence, which was omitted in this specific case.”