DODIK MAY RUN FOR ANY OFFICE EXCEPT REPUBLIKA SRPSKA PRESIDENT

BANJA LUKA, JUNE 6 /SRNA/ – Based on the wording of the Court of BiH’s ruling, Milorad Dodik may be a candidate for any public office except the office of Republika Srpska President, as that is the only prohibition explicitly stated in the operative part of the judgment, said criminal law professor Ljubinko Mitrović.

Mitrović stated that all legal consequences and restrictions arising from a conviction must be clearly and unequivocally set out in the operative part of a judgment. Had the court considered that additional restrictions existed, they should have been specified precisely, Mitrović said, adding that the current wording has created legal confusion and opened the door to differing interpretations. “For that reason, I believe that Milorad Dodik may be a candidate for all offices except the one for which a specific prohibition has been imposed, namely the office of Republika Srpska President,” Mitrović emphasized. He noted that the legal consequences of the conviction are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the judgment, nor are they defined in a manner that would remove any doubt regarding their scope and effect. “The notorious Article 203a of the Criminal Code of BiH provides that a security measure may be imposed within the general statutory range. For this criminal offense, no special range of the measure has been prescribed that would correspond to the social danger of the offense, which is primarily determined by the prescribed type and range of punishment. This makes the measure uncertain and the provision itself arbitrary and potentially contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights,” Mitrović said. According to him, an additional problem is the fact that, under this particular article of the Criminal Code, all general legal consequences of a conviction are linked to this offense, representing a deviation from the usual legislative drafting practices in criminal law. “That in itself is not prohibited, but it raises serious constitutional-law questions. The question arises as to why all legal consequences of a conviction apply specifically to this criminal offense, while this is not the case even for some significantly more serious criminal offenses,” Mitrović said. Such an approach is debatable, he stresses and added that it raises concerns that disproportionately severe legal consequences of a conviction may be intended to limit the political rights and freedoms of citizens. He added that this leaves open the question of whether such a legal solution is compatible with the Constitution of BiH, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “In a state governed by the rule of law, restrictions on political rights must be clear, precise, and foreseeable. When serious doubts exist regarding the scope of the legal consequences of a conviction, the matter deserves constitutional review and a final answer from the highest judicial institutions,” Professor Mitrović concluded.