Constitutional Court upheld appeals by Fikret Hodžić, Novalić and Solak

(Patria) - The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina today considered appeals in the Respirators case.

In this case, the Constitutional Court upheld the appeal of F. H. and the legal entity "F. H. Srebrena malina" d.o.o. and found a violation of the right to a fair trial of these appellants in the part of the contested judgment of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina which decided on their objection that they did not know what they were being charged with.

The Constitutional Court considers that the submitted judgments did not eliminate the doubt that these appellants were first confronted with the legal qualification of the offense for which they were convicted in the first-instance judgment, and that they were therefore unable to prepare their defense.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided to return the case in that part to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will remedy the established violation of the rights of these appellants.

In addition, the Constitutional Court partially upheld the appeal of F. S. and F. N. and found a violation of the right to a fair trial in connection with the presumption of innocence of these appellants in the process of determining the "criminal charge" in connection with statements made by certain public officials during the criminal proceedings.

Regarding the other allegations of F. S. and F. N., the appeal was dismissed.

The Constitutional Court concluded, among other things, that these appellants were convicted of the offense for which they were also charged, and that the court, through certain changes in the judgment, did not violate the subjective or objective identity of the indictment, about which the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina provided a detailed and clear explanation.

Furthermore, in this decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the court, through a comprehensive analysis of the evidence it accepted and evaluated, both individually and in mutual connection, concluded that F. S. and F. N. committed the criminal offense they are charged with, and that nothing indicates a violation of the principle of in dubio pro reo.

Regarding the public pronouncement of the judgment, the Constitutional Court found that the court's judgment was publicly pronounced by reading the operative part of the judgment and that the parties and the public were invited. The fact that the court did not read the entire operative part on that occasion, i.e., that it omitted certain parts of the operative part of the judgment, cannot lead to a conclusion of a violation of the right to pronouncement of the judgment.

The appellants were informed of the decision, and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina established that the original judgment is identical to the written copy. Regarding media reporting, the Constitutional Court considers that nothing can lead to the conclusion that a conviction was rendered due to media reporting on these proceedings, i.e., that it had an influence on the court
in its decision-making.