Sulejman Tabaković: The plunder of BiH's property is just a continuation of the Joint Criminal Enterprise by Croatia and Serbia

Sulejman Tabaković was born in 1952 in Bosanska Dubica. He graduated from the Faculty of Law in Zagreb. Since 1987, he has worked in state administration. First as head of the Legal Service of the Office for General Affairs of the Executive Council of the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. During the independence of the Republic of Croatia, from 1990, he was appointed head of the Department for Investment and Material Maintenance, and the Office for General Affairs and Protocol of the Republic of Croatia. From 1994, he was the head of the Department for Administrative-Legal, Personnel, and General Affairs. Since 2004, he has been transferred to the Central Office for State Administration, today the Ministry of Public Administration of the Republic of Croatia, where he also works in the Department for National Minorities. He is an exceptional expert on succession issues. Although he is a volunteer of the Homeland War and a holder of a commemorative medal, he has been exposed to horrific pressure and attacks for a long time. His car was even set on fire once. We ask him about the latest attack by the Republic of Croatia on BiH's property, illegalities, violations of the Croatian Constitution, international norms, and possible ways out of such a situation. He notes that the war crime of plunder never expires!

Patria: The Croatian Parliament passed the Law on Property Management. How is it possible to enact a ban on the disposal of other people's property when Annex G of the Vienna Treaty on Succession expressly prohibits it? How can a national law be above international treaties?

Tabaković: Are you referring to the force of the multilateral international treaty on succession and its Annex G? It is not only this legal circumstance that is problematic for the passing of an unconstitutional law, which contradicts the Law on Ratification of the Succession Agreement with annexes, but it also contradicts cogent norms taken from the EU acquis communautaire through chapters 23 and 24, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Vienna Convention on State Succession, and the 2000 Decision on Exemptions from the Prohibition of Disposal of Real Estate in the Territory of the Republic of Croatia by Legal Entities Based in the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is interesting that all ministers of justice of the Republic of Croatia gave consent for the sale or lease of BiH's property precisely according to the aforementioned Decision, about which I possess documentation, but only if it concerns sales or leases to individuals known to the ministers? How else can one explain that legal owners from BiH were not issued consent to take over their property and make investments for the benefit of both the owners and the communities where such facilities are located, while citizens of Croatia, friends of ministers, are granted consent for properties worth millions, even without compensation??

Patria: You mention that this law is unconstitutional, according to Article 88 of the Croatian Constitution, but also Articles 143, 144, and 145, as well as according to the obligations undertaken from international treaties. You have called on the Croatian Minister of Finance, Marić, to suspend the Law. You expect the same from the President of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. However, the Law was proposed by the Government of Croatia and then adopted by the Parliament with a huge majority (83-15, with 26 abstentions). In Sarajevo, this is interpreted primarily as a continuation of the targeted boycott of BiH's right to its property.

Tabaković: My comment, which you cited as a question, referred to Article 88 of the Constitution, which gives the President the right to refer the adopted law to the Constitutional Court for review and to propose the suspension of Articles 70 and 71 of the Law on Property Management of the Republic of Croatia. The question arises as to how it is possible that the property of legal entities from other countries is included in the Law as if it were war booty seized during the war? It is not possible to enact such a law because it also conflicts with the Croatian Constitution, which protects the right to property in Articles 48, 49, and 50, as well as the already cited Decision of the Government of Croatia, acquired rights, and the cited Annex-G!? The Succession Treaty states that property is returned under the condition of reciprocity between the succession participants. As far as I know, BiH, based on Succession and Annex, immediately after its ratification, returned the property of Croatia and Serbia and made it available to them! Croatia and Serbia not only do not return the property of BiH citizens in their territories based on reciprocity, but they dispute the submitted valid documents of those seeking the return of real estate, and they also dispute the evidence that exists in the land registries, cadastral offices, and tax administrations of their countries? I repeat that ministers selectively grant consent to owners for the disposal of real estate, only to those to whom they approve such transactions of "Bosnian real estate" for purchase or lease? This can be classified as criminal activity by institutions and responsible persons within them, according to the assumed legal provisions imposed through EU Regulations and Directives. The public and institutions justifiably ask whether this is a continuation of the Joint Criminal Enterprise through the plunder of property of BiH citizens, in accordance with Article 2 and 3 of the IV Geneva Convention and V and VI Nuremberg Principles?

Patria: Many say that the mafia, allegedly on both sides, has taken over the property subject to succession and manages it. If the mafia managed to postpone the process of returning property, it could only have done so with the assistance of the Croatian state and its institutions. It was not the mafia that enacted the aforementioned law, but the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Croatia.

Tabaković: Citizens are always right because history has taught them wisdom, and so it is in this case. This is about crime under the auspices of institutions that can commit usurpation of property rights through action, inaction, or omission based on legal provisions, thus creating war profiteers. However, I emphasize that their acquired ownership is neither legal nor legitimate because it is a war crime of plunder with prolonged effects to this day! You correctly noted that the mafia did not enact the disputed law, but the law was enacted to protect the war-profiteering mafia in order to legalize their actions, but they will not succeed because the war crime of plunder does not expire. Never!!!

Patria: The Minister of Justice of BiH speaks of a bilateral agreement between BiH and Croatia as a solution to this problem, which is another blatant deception. There is ignorance in BiH, but above all, unfortunately, a boycott by certain national policies that place another country above their own homeland. Croatia, based on all indications, has no intention of returning property to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Tabaković: The minister is wrong; there is no obligation for a bilateral agreement provided for in the Succession Treaty or its annexes anywhere. This is an imposed stupidity from Croatia's institutions. Let him read the documents he refers to!! In practice, the plunder by Croatian institutions mentions the 2000 Decision, based on which the Minister of Justice grants consent for the sale and lease of real estate of legal entities from BiH: Croatia must, Croatia will return, but Croatia, with such behavior, is causing damage to its citizens, because its citizens will have to compensate for the crime of privileged war profiteers that is occurring with illegal procedures involving the property of "Bosnian legal and natural" persons!!

Patria: You have called the treatment of BiH's property a crime of plunder of the civilian population. What procedures do you propose for the process of returning this property?

Tabaković: In my statements, I am even mild in recognizing the legal situation we are in. According to legal forensics, the behavior of institutions and authorized persons within them clearly indicates that they are all subject to the assessment of the Geneva Convention of 1949 without exception.

The International Court has jurisdiction to prosecute persons who have committed or ordered to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, or the following acts against persons or property protected by the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (a) willful killing; (b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (c) willful infliction of great suffering or serious injury to body or health; (d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (e) compelling a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the armed forces of the enemy; (f) willful denial of the right of a prisoner of war or civilian to a fair and regular judicial proceeding; (g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of civilians; (h) taking civilians as hostages.

Article 3. Breaches of the laws or customs of war: The International Court has jurisdiction to prosecute persons who have violated the laws or customs of war. These breaches include, among others, the following: (a) the use of poisonous or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; (b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) attack, or bombardment, by any means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings or other objects; (d) seizure, destruction or intentional damage of religious, charitable and educational institutions, institutions devoted to art and science, historical monuments, and works of art and science; (e) pillage of public or private property.

Patria: Bosnia and Herzegovina returned the property of Croatia, and even Serbia, while those countries returned nothing to it. In these circumstances, is a lawsuit to some European or world institution possible? Should BiH turn to the court in Luxembourg, as Croatia is violating international treaties it accepted when joining the EU?

Tabaković: As I have already said, these are criminal offenses under the national legislation of the Republic of Croatia, international treaties, bilateral and multilateral agreements, the legal heritage of states formed after the dissolution of the common state, the legal heritage of the EU, and the judicial system of the EU.

I send a message of optimism to the citizens and legal entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. I am convinced, based on parts of the cited regulations of the EU legal system and our legal heritage, that we will win this war!!!