Worrying increase in acquittals in BiH

The visit of the Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Matthew Field, to the Court of BiH revealed what has been known for years, but for which no 'cure' has been found yet.

The judiciary in BiH is the weakest link, hindering the development of BiH, not contributing to reconciliation, and fabricated indictments ultimately result in high costs, acquittals for the falsely accused, while the guilty walk free.

Ambassador Field commented on the visit on his official Twitter profile, stating that OSCE data shows the number of convictions for war crimes in BiH fell from 86 percent in 2014 to 39 percent in 2018.

The number and profile of those accused of corruption are "equally disappointing with de facto impunity for these crimes," Field wrote.

The Ambassador said that all institutions should do their job.

Ranko Debevec, President of the Court of BiH, tried to justify this institution, stating that "verdicts depend on the quality of the indictment." And he is right, but Debevec should also know that there are 'seas' of indictments that are confirmed at the Court of BiH without any verification.

One such example is the indictment in the case of Elfeta Veseli, and the indictment for crimes in Zvornik was confirmed without containing an autopsy report of the victim, i.e., the murdered boy Slobodan Stojanović. Even the presiding judge in the courtroom wondered how the indictment was filed without an autopsy report. The answer is logical – because the pre-trial judge confirmed it as such. Therefore, Debevec is right, every institution should do its job, diligently and with serious analysis, not by formally stamping a seal.

The increasing number of acquittals is also due to false witnesses, who are increasingly present in indictments. An example is the 'Orić' case. The defense of Naser Orić, who was acquitted by a final verdict of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of charges of crimes committed in the area of Srebrenica, filed a criminal complaint against protected witness O-1, who was one of the key witnesses for the State Prosecutor's Office in the case against Orić and Sabahudin Muhić. This same witness has testified before the Court of BiH in other cases as well.

Izet Arifović Ćiza will not see justice. He has 'gone' to a more just world. In a letter he left behind, he stated that protected witness S is not telling the truth! In the Orić case, the Panel accepted this, they rejected the testimony of O1, and Ćiza was unconvincingly sentenced by the Court of BiH to ten years in prison on charges of committing a war crime against two Serb civilians from the vicinity of Bratunac in July 1992. Are O and S the same person!? To this day, it has not been explained how such a thing could happen. How is it possible that the security services of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at least ex officio, did not react in the case of the controversial witness?

From the Court of BiH, there is only a weak explanation that they cannot comment on ongoing cases. But who can comment on the downfall of the BiH judiciary?

Is the judiciary in BiH whoever is in power!?

A bad judiciary certainly leaves room for manipulation of wartime events in BiH. Prosecutors openly state in court that they file indictments in accordance with the recommendations/orders of various assemblies. For example, in the Čemerno case, the prosecutor stated in his opening remarks that the National Assembly of the RS had decided so.

Is there a legal basis, witnesses, reasonable suspicion? Prosecutors do not care about that. They fulfill the wishes of political principals, even if the verdict is ultimately acquitting. And politics will use this to say that verdicts are only passed against 'those guys' and the like. The prosecutor will not be held accountable for not proving anything, ever. But the state will pay for their inaction.

Thus, Goran Sarić, who was acquitted by a final verdict of charges in two cases for war crimes in Sarajevo and genocide in Srebrenica, sued the state for the time spent under restrictive measures, demanding compensation of 43,000 convertible marks (KM) for non-material damages.

And the number of 'Gorans' is increasing every day.

The HJPC remains silent on these circumstances. The state, unfortunately, is paying enormously for judicial cowardice, inaction, and arrogance during this time. Where is the accountability of the people in the judiciary?