Is there statute of limitations for 'traveling' legal cases?

By: Amina Corbo Zeco

It seems that prosecutor's offices in BiH have become 'problem generators': recent decision of the Cantonal Prosecutor's office to return the cases relating to alleged 'political murders' back to the authority of the Prosecutor's Office BiH, is the climax of prosecution soap opera. And while the cases keep on being shifted from one prosecutor's office to another, few seem to wonder if those cases will become old i.e. if their statute of limitations will run out, and who will answer for that.

It's been over 20 years since Nedzad Ugljen was killed. The Cantonal Prosecutor's office has not cleared this case yet. The murder – terrorism case has not been solved yet. The case been allegedly shifted to the state prosecution, and then they returned it to the Cantonal office Sarajevo, which eventually sent it back to the BiH Prosecutor's office. Until its statute of limitations runs out.

The same is with the 'Halilovic' case from 1993. Cantonal prosecutor's office Sarajevo, from there to BiH Prosecutor's office, then back to the Cantonal office and so on and so forth, until the statute of limitations runs out. If not already.

A question comes to mind, how come that the Cantonal Prosecutor's office Sarajevo and the Cantonal court Sarajevo had been responsible for these cases until BiH Court and Prosecutor's office were founded, after which, all of a sudden, the Cantonal Chief Prosecutor drops the cases to the BiH Prosecutor's office, which will ponder the case for several years and return it (yet again) to the Cantonal office.

What's the matter with the prosecutor's offices? From professional point of view, there's no dilemma about who is responsible for these cases – it is the Cantonal prosecutor's office Sarajevo. None of the said cases seems to be a war crime. The court case 'Leutar' is considered an act of terrorism, which is a criminal offense as per Criminal Law of Federation BiH of 1998, Article 146. The cases Ugljen and Halilovic are alleged murders.

That 'Leutar' case has been under jurisdiction of the Cantonal prosecutor's office Sarajevo is confirmed by the fact that Ivan Andabak, Jedinko Bajkusa, Zoran Basic, Dominik Ilijasevic Como, Mario Milicevic and Leutar's driver Zeljko Cosis, were released by verdict of the Cantonal Court Sarajevo on 12 November 2002 and freed from assassination charges. The verdict of release was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of BiH.   

Therefore, why the Cantonal prosecutor's office Sarajevo is avoiding to solve the cases of Leutar, Ugljen and Halilovic, but also other cases? Is the chief prosecutor afraid of something or someone, or is it about something else? If the chief prosecutor is unable to solve the cases with help from Federal police, Cantonal police, Intelligence, then what is s/he paid for? Why should somebody else do the job of chief prosecutors while they are paid to do the job?

It is curious that the 'eternal' chief prosecutor of the Federal Prosecutor's office never makes public comments on the aforementioned cases, and those are his prosecutors who control the work of cantonal prosecutor's offices. What kind of control, we wonder, when there's no progress whatsoever? They probably steer away from hot issues as they don't want to rock the boat... and are 'taking it easy' until their retirement.

The time has come to pose the question if Federation BiH really needs such federal prosecutor's office that has spent over 16.5 million KM in the last 10 years, with no results.

Their inaction and negligence can be seen in the Changes to the Criminal proceedings of Federation BiH, which they lobbied for together with the judges of the Supreme Court FBiH. These changes allow for the cases (after ruling is reversed) to be returned to the first instance courts for another trial, which allows judges and prosecutors of the Supreme Court FBiH, as well as Federal prosecutor's office, to continue enjoying paid leisure time, or attend seminars and lectures, without much interest in solving cases in timely manner.

BH tax payers continue to pay for these prosecutors to attend seminars, travel or send 'difficult' cases to other offices, while they receive their salary for small-time civil procedures that will not cause them headache.

It looks like the time has also come for the cantonal assemblies or parliaments, depending of the level of power, to start handpicking chief prosecutors. The present selection criteria and the way in which they are chosen are deemed ineffective as the prosecutors are not accountable to anyone for their inaction or incompetence, the least of all to the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, which is only able to regulate useless projects and study trips of its own members.