APPEAL AGAINST VERDICT FOR REPUBLIKA SRPSKA PRESIDENT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCE

SARAJEVO, JUNE 11 /SRNA/ - The defense of the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, will tomorrow present a proposal to accept the appeal against the first-instance verdict of the extra-constitutional Court of BiH and reject the indictment, arguing that on the day the decree was signed, the amended Criminal Code of BiH was not legally in force and therefore, according to the existing law, no criminal offense exists.

The defense asks how anyone can commit a criminal offense if they indisputably exercise a constitutional authority, as the President of Republika Srpska did when signing the decrees, and emphasizes that the first-instance verdict contains a legally irreconcilable contradiction.

The appeal states that the Criminal Code of BiH has been amended 16 times and that it constitutes a single legislative act.

“This means that a unified criterion must be applied regarding the entry into legal force of individual amendments, which means the amendment must be published in the ‘Official Gazette of BiH’ and it must enter into force the day after their publication in the official gazette, at the earliest,” the emphasized the appeal, which will be orally presented tomorrow before the Appeals Chamber by the attorney for the President of Republika Srpska, Goran Bubić.

Without entering into a discussion about the legitimacy of Christian Schmidt, these facts mean that by the decision of July 1, 2023, the amendments to the Criminal Code of BiH, which were published in the “Official Gazette of BiH” on July 7, 2023, could not have come into force before July 8.

“It means that the Criminal Code of BiH, containing the criminal offense from Article 203a of that law, was not legally in force on July 7,” the appeal clarifies.

The defense emphasizes that it would constitute unacceptable arbitrariness if part of an important law were considered to come into force upon publication in the official gazette, while another part of the same law’s amendments were deemed to come into force upon publication on a website.

“It is irrelevant for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant knew the new article of the BiH Criminal Code had been written. What matters is when it entered into legal force,” the defense states.

The defense stated in the appeal that the factual description of the incriminating part of the first-instance verdict excludes the existence of unlawfulness.

The appeal notes that the Republika Srpska President issued a decree promulgating the law by exercising powers prescribed by the Constitution of Republika Srpska.

The defense argues that the key question arises: how can anyone commit a criminal offense if they are exercising a constitutional power, as indicated even by the factual description in the verdict? It points out that the first-instance verdict appears to contain a legally irreconcilable contradiction.

"The First-Instance Court fully accepted the factual description from the indictment, and in the reasoning of the verdict did not even address the defense’s objection concerning the exclusion of unlawfulness, despite this objection being thoroughly elaborated in the closing argument," the appeal states.

The defense also pointed to significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, citing a violation of the right to defense and the absence of any evidence confirming the appointment of Christian Schmidt by the Peace Implementation Council /PIC/.

The appeal emphasized that the first-instance verdict states that "the status of the High Representative is not the subject of the indictment," and that the /extra-constitutional/ Court of BiH maintained this position throughout the first-instance proceedings.

"It appears likely that, despite the defense's objections, the Court completely marginalized the facts concerning Schmidt’s appointment in the reasoning of the verdict, focusing instead on elaborating the powers of the High Representative in abstract terms. Moreover, this was done not with regard to the content of Annex 10, which is mentioned in the factual description of the verdict, but rather in relation to the practice of the Constitutional Court of BiH," the appeal states.

The defense argues that, in any case, the issue of Schmidt’s legitimacy should have been addressed in relation to the defense of Milorad Dodik, since Dodik is protected by the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof regarding Schmidt’s legitimacy should have fallen on the extra-constitutional Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, but this was ignored during the first-instance proceedings.

The appeal also states and explains that a piece of evidence submitted by the defense was rejected based on another piece of evidence that had not even been presented.

"In issuing the decision of May 21, 2024, which rejected the defense counsel's request to hear Schmidt as a witness on the circumstances of his appointment, the Court of BiH referred to an 'information note on the diplomatic status of the High Representative to BiH,' the origin of which is unclear, as it was addressed only to Ranko Debevec," the appeal states.

According to the content, as the defense claims, the information was provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Council of Ministers, without any reference to the court case file it was allegedly submitted to.

In the first-instance verdict, according to the appeal, it is claimed that no evidence outside of what was submitted by the parties was introduced, yet it is evident that the court relied on evidence that was neither known nor made available to the defense before it was used in reaching a decision.

In the appeal, which will be presented tomorrow, the defense also pointed out violations of the principle of judicial impartiality, violations of other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, actions taken after a request for recusal, and violations of the principle of equality of arms.

Among other things, the appeal includes the defense's objections regarding the legality and credibility of the evidence, a violation of the principle of publicity during the hearing held on February 5, 2024, as well as violations of the principles of orality and immediacy to the detriment of the defense, violation of the right to use language and script, and violation of the presumption of innocence.

Goran Bubić, attorney for Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, told SRNA earlier today that the defense will request the annulment of the first-instance verdict before the Appeals Chamber tomorrow, seeking either an acquittal or a retrial.

The session of the Appeals Chamber in the case against Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik is scheduled for 13:00.