Savić on the 'Respirators' Case: As if Novalić and Others Were Accused of Arson, but Convicted of Car Theft

(Patria) - On Thursday, a hearing will be held at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the BiH Prosecutor's Office and the defenses of the accused in the 'Fadil Novalić and others' case will present appeals regarding the first-instance verdict of the BiH Court.

- At that moment, the necessity was to procure them at any cost and in any way, and it seems to me that only in the FBiH did it lead to criminal proceedings – said attorney Tatjana Savić in tonight's edition of Hayat's show '7plus'.

As she says, the indictment was ambitiously filed with good media preparation.

- It is obvious that in the FBiH, several people ended up in the dock, and the question arises what would have happened if they had not tried to procure them – stated Savić.

She notes that it was the duty to try to procure respirators, which happened, but the procurement was first covered by the media and then called 'scandalous'.

- The court did not sufficiently appreciate that situation. And even if it did, from what I have read, I do not see the elements of the criminal offenses they are charged with – she explained and added:

We know there was a scramble for respirators, that states were stealing them from each other. Aleksandar Vučić said that money was carried in suitcases.

The attorney says the necessity was to procure them at any cost and in any way.

- The case was 'inflated'. It started with citizens being frightened by the situation. There was talk about them conspiring, that Novalić devised a plan, a campaign started against, ... When all that is presented to the citizen, even when I myself listened at the beginning, it sounded like someone was trying to make money from that tragedy, and it was easy to win citizens over to that side and turn them against the prime minister – stated Savić.

Dissenting opinion of Judge Branko Perić

In this verdict, let us recall, Judge Branko Perić had a dissenting opinion. He said he is aware that this is not practice, but he will still read his dissenting opinion, the essence of which is that not every abuse must be a criminal offense.

- He wanted to tell citizens that he does not stand behind such injustice. Perić was aware that disciplinary proceedings awaited him, but he still consciously entered into it because the need for legal integrity was stronger than dealing with those proceedings at the end of his career – emphasized Savić.

As she says, what all three judges agreed on is that there is none of those criminal offenses, but by the decision of the other two judges, an indictment for abuse of position was reached.

She also tried to explain to citizens what this means.

- You defend yourself against what is in the indictment, and then they convict you for something completely different. For example, as if you were accused of arson at a neighbor's, you defend yourself that you were helping, you get a verdict and it says you are acquitted, but you are convicted of vehicle theft. They tell you there was a vehicle in the garage and it is gone, so you are guilty – explained Savić.