This post is also available in: Bosnian
Prior to scheduling the hearing, the court had rejected the defense’s appeal against a previous state court decision and rejected its request to refer the case to another court.
In its decision regarding the appeal, the trial chamber said there were no reasons which would justify the referral of the case to the municipal court in Sarajevo.
“The mere fact that this court is composed of colleagues the defendant worked with for nearly 11 years does not bring into question the professional and objective treatment of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” the chamber announced.
In its appeal, the defense said the president of the state court and the defendant were in the middle of a professional conflict. The defense also said the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) received a letter in 2010 containing “very negative and untrue accusations” against Miletic. The letter was signed by a group of state court judges.
The chamber didn’t accept this information as evidence of partiality on the part of the state court. The chamber pointed out that “the court president has no influence on decisions which judges render in the cases they handle.” The chamber stated that the defendant didn’t know which judges submitted the letter to the HJPC and how many judges were in that group.
Miletic said she didn’t see any justified reason to treat her case differently from those of other state court judges who had trial proceedings against them transferred to other courts.
“This is legal violence. If we referred the cases of Dragica Miletic and Vlado Adamovic to other courts, why is this case so special?” Miletic told BIRN – Justice Report.
The state court concluded that the case of Azra Miletic was more complex than the case against her colleague, Dragica Miletic.
Azra Miletic allegedly received a bribe from Senad Sabic and Ramo Brkic, defendants in an organized crime case. According to the charges, Sabic and Brkic promised to pay a certain amount of money to judge Miletic in order to influence the outcome of their second instance trial. The indictment alleges that Miletic accepted the proposal and received a portion of the promised amount of money through an intermediary.
