CAN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ENCOURAGE BiH COURT TO SUMMON CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT AS A WITNESS, HOWEVER?

BANJA LUKA, SEPTEMBER 22 /SRNA/ - The summoning to Christian Schmidt to appear as a witness before the European Court of Human Rights, regardless of the circumstances, is proof that there is no reason not to be called and heard before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the same capacity, bearing in mind that Schmidt himself did not even invoke immunity, at least not publicly, lawyer Goran Bubić pointed out in a column for SRNA.

The column of lawyer Bubić for SRNA is transmitted in its entirety: We learn from the media that Christian Schmidt will testify at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in the case "Kovačević v. BiH". "Avaz" reported that Schmidt was summoned to Strasbourg "as a top interpreter of the Dayton Peace Accords". This is persevering with lies because high representatives in BiH, even when they were legitimately appointed, were never authorized by anything to be interpreters of the General Framework Agreement for BiH and its annexes, except for Annex 10 - Agreement on Civil Implementation of a Peaceful Settlement. But, this news is interesting for another reason. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected the proposal of the defense of the Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik for Christian Schmidt to appear as a witness in the criminal proceedings, citing the diplomatic immunity that Schmidt has. In the decision of May 21, which rejected the defense proposal, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina referred to Information on the diplomatic status of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, number: 11/2-31-05-1-43421-2/23 of December 11, 2023, for which the defense does not know how and at whose request it got into the criminal file of this case. This act is not mentioned in the indictment, nor was it referred to by the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This information from our ministry is not addressed to the number of the criminal case, it is not known by whose order it is put in the case, because it was registered in the Court of BiH only under the so-called SU number (judicial administration). It can be assumed that it is in the file by order of the then President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In any case, summoning to Christian Schmidt to appear before the European Court of Human Rights as a witness, regardless of the circumstances, is proof that there is no reason not to summon and hear him at the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the same capacity. This is all the more since Schmidt himself did not even invoke immunity, at least not publicly. That is why this kind of action by the European Court of Human Rights should encourage the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to summon and hear Schmidt as a witness in the criminal case against President Dodik and Miloš Lukić. Appearing before the court of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he sits, albeit under contradictory circumstances, is not at all a humiliation, but would represent an expression of respect for the judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is also desirable from an ethical point of view, and it would not go against customary practices either. The second question is the real motives behind summoning Schmidt to the European Court of Human Rights, appreciating the clear position of that court that the high representative in BiH cannot interfere in matters regulated by the Constitution of BiH, expressed precisely in the case "Sejdić and Finci v. BiH". The decision in the "Kovačević" case evidently raises issues regulated by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, in the case "Dušan Berić and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina" (a total of 26 appellants removed from office by the decision of Paddy Ashdown, then High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina), in point 25 of the Decision on Admissibility, it is stated: "The High Representative claims that his office was formed and received powers from various international instruments, including legally binding resolutions of the UN Security Council..." The court further quotes the position of the high representative in BiH at the time that the UN Security Council "...always considered his office an integral part of its efforts, according to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to establish and maintain peace in the region". On the other hand, Schmidt claims in numerous interviews that he was appointed by the Peace Implementation Council at the suggestion of Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany at the time, and that the UN Security Council is not competent to appoint him. Therefore, within the standards of a fair trial, it would be fair for Schmidt to appear as a witness before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the criminal proceedings against President Dodik and Lukić and clarify these and other contradictions. There is an obvious collision between the contents of Annex 10, and even earlier understandings of the European Court, on the one hand, in relation to the public statements of Schmidt. Unless these obvious differences are reconciled by the so-called judicial activism, as seems likely. And who cares that by evident inconsistencies the rule of law is being poked in the eye, this political process is still being pushed, in which the BiH Prosecutor's Office favors an illegitimate foreign citizen to the detriment of BiH citizens.