First terrorism conviction in Republika Srpska overturned

(Patria) - The Supreme Court of Republika Srpska overturned the verdict by which Milan Macura was sentenced to a conditional one-year prison term for terrorism, and ordered a new trial.

Macura was convicted in the first instance for a message posted on Instagram in which he stated, among other things, that he was "ideal material for a suicide bomber" and "asking someone to gift him 150 kg of C4 explosives to blow up 'Zimzograd'", BIRN reports.

In its explanation, the Supreme Court of Republika Srpska indicated that it was necessary to assess whether the accused could carry out what he stated in the post, and his motives for posting such a message.

"The first-instance court assessed, above all, the content of the messages themselves, and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ostoja Barašin, Aleksandar Pastir, and Milena Mijatović. However, solely from the content of the threatening messages, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the accused took the action of threatening with the aim of seriously intimidating citizens and with the aim of seriously disrupting or destroying the basic constitutional, political, economic, and social structures of Republika Srpska. Likewise, from the testimonies of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses, who are the organizers of the 'Zimzogad' event – in which they state that after reading the report of the messages, they felt threatened, with witness Milena Mijatović stating that she did not personally feel threatened, but that she was not comfortable reading it – a clear conclusion cannot be drawn that the accused took the action of threatening with the stated aim," the Supreme Court's decision reads.

Macura's defense attorney, Dragan Stupar, told the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIRN BiH) that he was satisfied with the decision and that the outcome of the retrial should be awaited.

The case has been returned to the first-instance court for a retrial, where "the court will eliminate the shortcomings pointed out in this decision regarding the assessment of the evidence presented at the main hearing, and if it deems it necessary, will introduce new evidence," the Supreme Court's decision stated.