Death of Dženan Memic: What are the sanctions for court experts in the case of compromised findings

By Amra Varatanović

After a completely contradictory finding by traffic expert Mirsad Kulović was presented in the case of Dženan Memic's murder, in relation to the finding of expert Ševal Kovačević regarding the events of February 8, 2016, in Velika aleja, questions arose about the credibility of experts in court proceedings. Who monitors their work, to whom is the report submitted, who can dismiss them, who can file an objection to their work?

According to the valid Law on Experts of the FBiH, the Federal Minister of Justice dismisses an expert at the proposal of the Commission. According to Article 22 of the same law, the Commission performs a periodic evaluation of the work of experts and proposes, or imposes, appropriate measures, about which it informs the minister.

All objections are submitted to the Federal Minister of Justice, and they can be submitted by the parties, or the authorized representatives of the parties, as well as professional associations and associations of experts. Likewise, according to the Law, the presidents of courts or the bodies conducting the proceedings monitor the work of experts and inform the Federal Minister of Justice about their observations, objections, and imposed fines, and propose determining the responsibility of experts in accordance with this Law.

Serious objections to the finding and presentation method of expert Ševal Kovačević were raised by the Memic family, claiming that the expert's finding was completely fabricated. The Memic family also announced criminal charges against all experts who, as they claim, made false findings for the needs of the KS Prosecutor's Office.

The Patria Agency also requested a statement from the FBiH Ministry of Justice regarding the specific case, but the ministry did not provide an answer.

We remind you that in April 2017, Kovačević presented his finding as an expert for the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office at the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo. He stated at the time that the "impact of the vehicle on the pedestrians was simultaneous at a speed of 45 km per hour and that both pedestrians were thrown in two different directions." In such a way that Memic was thrown "eight meters", and Alisa Mutap, who was with him that night, in another direction.

Given that he used the on-site report, the report on the reconstruction carried out, versions of sketches, and photo documentation, it remains unclear how Kovačević reached the conclusion that the pedestrians were hit by a vehicle at all. Two witnesses, traffic investigator Sefedin Škrijelj, as well as technician Senad Mešić (who were at the scene on the night of February 8-9, 2016), stated that it was not possible to determine the point or place of contact between the vehicle and the pedestrian(s). How Kovačević managed this and where he got the fabricated parameters from is a question for the competent institutions.

Kovačević had an order from the KS Prosecutor's Office to determine the movement of the vehicle in question on the night of February 8, 2016, as well as the movement of pedestrians Dženan Memic and Alisa Mutap, and the "manner of pedestrian calming."

He further claimed in his finding that Memic and Mutap were moving in the middle of the alley, with a distance of 20 cm between them. According to Alisa Mutap's testimony, the distance between her and Dženan was no more than a few centimeters, given that she said they were almost touching shoulders.

Kovačević even demonstrated the "moment of impact" in court, stating how Memic stepped to the left, with the possibility that he had pushed Mutap before that. Kovačević contradicts himself because he already said that the impact of the vehicle on the pedestrians was simultaneous.

He further described the contact points of the vehicle with the young man's body, even though it is known that no injuries below the waist were found on the young man's body.

Although it remained unclear to the Court Panel, presided over by Igor Todorović, how there were no injuries below the waist on Dženan Memic's body, especially after the finding of medical expert Hamza Žujo, it was not enough for the Court to request a second expert opinion. Instead, they waited for the defense's proposal for a repeated expert opinion.

The law clearly specifies when an expert can be dismissed from duty, and in this case, Article 25 can be applied, "when there are other serious objections to his work." The Commission can propose the dismissal of the expert to the Federal Minister of Justice.

Traffic expert Mirsad Kulović stated in his finding that, based on the analysis of nine elements, he did not find the collision site between the VW T4 vehicle and the pedestrian.

The absence of any material traces on the road that would determine the collision site or suggest the location of the vehicle-pedestrian contact does not support the thesis that the event in question is a traffic accident of the type "vehicle-pedestrian collision" - the expert stated.

Expert Kulović also stated that there is no correlation between the damage found on the vehicle and the pedestrian's injuries that would correspond to injuries sustained in a "vehicle-pedestrian collision" type of traffic accident. He stated that no traces of tissue or blood were found on the vehicle. Also, there were no leg injuries on the pedestrian, although in "car hitting pedestrian" type accidents, legs are usually injured first, followed by the head and chest.

Kulović said he does not support the thesis that it was a traffic accident.