Prosecutor Testifies Against Judge Azra Miletic, Describes Her Past Decisions as “Unjust”

Miletic has been accused of accepting a bribe from Ramo Brkic and another defendant, Senad Sabic. According to the charges, Sabic and Brkic promised to give a certain amount of money to Miletic from July 2014 to February 2015.

The prosecution alleges that Sabic and Brkic, who were facing organized crime charges, bribed Miletic in order to influence the outcome of a second instance proceeding against them. The indictment alleges Miletic received a portion of the bribe through an intermediary known as S-1, knowingly violating the law.
 
Testifying at today’s hearing, prosecutor Oleg Cavka described the appeals proceedings in the case of Ramo Brkic, Senad Sabic and other defendants charged corruption and drug trafficking, in which Miletic was a judge.

“I saw them [Miletic’s chamber] as a way to bring down the prosecution. We should have just been quiet and suffered through it it. The prosecution was like a flower pot in the courtroom,” Cavka said, commenting on decisions made by Miletic’s chamber.
 
“The rest of the chamber didn’t take notice, like they didn’t care,” Cavka said.
 
Listing specific problems, Cavka said the defense was given two months more than the prosecution to present their case, the evidence was judged prematurely, the prosecution was pressured to reduce evidence lists and that new expert testimony regarding drugs was rejected.
 
Cavka said Miletic didn’t allow the prosecution to present expert testimony in the first instance case.
 
“I was surprised when Miletic said, ‘You just stuffed that in with the other charges,’ and ‘I’m really anxious to hear what evidence you have to back this up,’” Cavka said.
 
Addressing the chamber, Miletic said there was “no point in asking Cavka questions” since they clearly have different interpretations of the law. She said the expert witness proposed by Cavka was going to discuss “unknown perpetrators,” and that she rightly questioned its strength as a new piece of evidence.
 
Miletic’s defense attorney, Edina Residovic, asked Cavka if apart from his personal objections, he noticed the defendant committing violations of law. Cavka said he believed that Miletic didn’t have the authority to come to some of the decisions she made and that her rejection of new evidence was illegal.
 
“I believe it isn’t clear why the court decided not to hear the expert,” Cavka said.
 
Ramo Brkic’s defense attorney, Asim Crnalic, asked about the decision made by the new chamber regarding the expert testimony, after Miletic was arrested and the case was reassigned.
 
Cavka confirmed that the new appeals chamber also rejected his proposal to have the expert testify. He said the chamber also asked the prosecution to be rational with proposals for evidence in an appeals case.

Judges Milos Babic and Tihomir Lukes are expected to testify at the next hearing, scheduled for February 15. They were both part of Miletic’s appeals team in the case in question.