Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik pointed out that the Dayton Peace Agreement confirmed the statehood of Srpska, which according to the valid and unchanged Constitution of BiH still has jurisdiction over the judiciary, finances, border service, police affairs, defense and army, intelligence and security affairs and many other jurisdictions unconstitutionally hijacked by impositions, threats, deceits and frauds.
“Even those jurisdictions usurped by the imposition of laws by high representatives, such as the laws on the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, could not be confirmed in the Parliamentary Assembly at the level of BiH, because according to its rules of procedure, high representatives could not be `proposers,` so these and other imposed laws are null or at least invalid for a long time,” said Dodik in an article he wrote.
SRNA publishes in full the article by the President of Republika Srpska titled “Non-Constitutional BiH”:
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH, more commonly known as the Dayton Agreement, and its 11 annexes, along with the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation from 1975, is one of the most important documents of international law created after World War II.
Relatively short, it is elaborated in detail through numerous annexes signed by the then “Republic of BiH,” and Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH as constituent states of the Dayton “BiH,” as it is now its official Dayton name. This Agreement, including the annexes as its integral part, is governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The priority of international law is also confirmed by the Constitutional Court of BiH in Decision 5/98, which says, among other things: “Unlike the constitutions of many other countries, the Constitution of BiH in Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement is an integral part of an international agreement”.
Therefore, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which establishes the general principle of international law, and these principles, according to Article 3.3(b) of the Constitution of BiH, “are an integral part of the legal order of BiH and the entities,” must be applied in the interpretation of all of its provisions, including the Constitution of BiH.
The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, confirming the same stance, said that “The General Framework Agreement contains only 11 articles, while the essential obligations are contained in the annexes: therefore, it is clear, according to the Commission’s opinion, that the intention of the parties to the General Framework Agreement was for it to be merely a framework agreement, while the annexes would regulate its substance”.
Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement, which is the Constitution of BiH, in Article 12 regulates: “This Constitution shall enter into force upon the signing of the General Framework Agreement as a constitutional act which replaces and repeals the Constitution of the Republic of BiH”.
Thus, on December 14, 1995, the existence of the “Republic of BiH” officially ceased, and only two entities remained as contracting parties to Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement. This is confirmed by numerous opinions of Bosniak professors and legal experts.
For instance, Professor Kasim Trnka, a member of the “Republic of BiH” delegation in Dayton, writes: “Since the Constitution was imposed by an international agreement, the constitutional order was not changed in accordance with the revision procedure prescribed by the previous legal and legitimate Constitution of the Republic of BiH, and thus we can speak of constitutional discontinuity”.
Therefore, Republika Srpska, as one of the two contracting parties to Annex 4, sent an invitation to the state bodies of the Federation of BiH – to the president and vice presidents, as well as to the prime minister and vice prime ministers – for discussions on the implementation of the Constitution of BiH, regarding anomalies arising from the unlawful actions of high representatives and other structures. They refused, and this is not the first time.
The Dayton Agreement confirmed the statehood of Republika Srpska, which was only diminished by a part of its jurisdictions, ten of them, which were transferred to “BiH”.
Therefore, under the valid and unchanged Constitution of BiH, Republika Srpska, as an entity, still retains jurisdiction over the entire judiciary /except for the Constitutional Court of BiH/, all finances and taxes, border services, all police matters, defense, the military, intelligence, and security matters, as well as many others that have been unconstitutionally taken from it through impositions, threats, schemes, and deceptions.
Even those jurisdictions taken through the imposition of laws by the High Representatives, such as the laws on the Court and the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, could not be confirmed in the Parliamentary Assembly at the BiH level, because according to its rules of procedure, the High Representatives could not be “proposers,” so these and other imposed laws are either null and void or at least no longer valid.
Therefore, Republika Srpska did not gain autonomy in Dayton, because it had no one to gain it from, but rather confirmed its statehood. This was also confirmed by Richard Holbrooke himself, who is called the architect of the Dayton Agreement, when he said: “There are two entities, and we can only create a concept of the Constitution of BiH by extracting from the two entities the content that will allow the state to be preserved, to be somewhat functional and stable.” That is why the key provision of the Constitution of BiH is Article 3.3.a): “All government functions and powers that are not expressly assigned to the institutions of BiH in this Constitution belong to the entities.”
Since Annex 4 was written by American lawyers, this is almost a verbatim copy of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This amendment originated from the “Federalist Papers,” which were written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison: “The powers granted by the Constitution to the central government /the U.S. level/ are limited and precisely defined, while the powers of the sovereign states /the 50 states that make up the U.S./ are broad and unlimited.”
And this is not the only thing written based on the model of the U.S. Constitution. Due to the encroachment on the property of Republika Srpska, it is important to note how this issue is addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States” /note: the District of Washington/, and also to exercise the same authority over places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the places may be”.
Therefore, the Constitution of BiH stipulated that only the entities have the right to property on their territories, 49 percent for Republika Srpska and 51 percent for the Federation of BiH.
Another extremely important provision of the Constitution of BiH – Article 5.5 – should be read every day in Sarajevo: “No entity shall threaten or use force against another entity, and the armed forces of one entity shall not, under any circumstances, enter or remain on the territory of another entity without the consent of the government of the other entity and the Presidency of BiH. All armed forces in BiH shall act in accordance with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of BiH.”
This is also stated in Annex 1A – “Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace Agreement”. It is doubly reinforced.
Therefore, all those constitutional jurisdictions that, according to the Constitution of BiH, belong to the entities, but which have been transferred to the level of BiH for any reason, are only temporary, as they are unconstitutional. This particularly applies to several key jurisdictions.
As Professor Kasim Trnka notes: “There is a need to carry out the necessary constitutionalization of already achieved reforms in the areas of the defense system, the judiciary, the taxation system, intelligence and security services, and other important issues that, instead of being regulated by the Constitution, have been regulated by laws.”
Therefore, these laws are not in accordance with the Constitution of BiH, and they need to be incorporated into the Constitution of BiH to become constitutional. These include the laws on indirect taxation and the introduction of VAT, the laws on the Court of BiH and the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, the border service and border control, police officers, the State Investigations and Protection Agency /SIPA/, the laws on defense and the armed forces of BiH, as well as many other regulations.
Even though Republika Srpska has repeatedly requested and proposed to the Federation of BiH, as the other contracting party, to review and redefine some of these jurisdictions, and find solutions that are acceptable and beneficial for both sides, such as defense and armed forces, judicial jurisdiction, two VAT accounts, and others, there has been no response.
The Federation of BiH, essentially political Sarajevo, considered all those taken jurisdictions untouchable because they were created and imposed by the so-called “international community”. Some of them were confirmed by the Constitutional Court of BiH by outvoting the Serbian and Croatian judges with two Bosniak judges and three foreigners.
The extent of arrogance, impudence, and violation of the Constitution of BiH is evident from the statement of Nedim Ademović, an official of the Constitutional Court of BiH, who says: “The constitutional and legal order does not correspond to the formal constitutional text. It has been intensively developed and changed since Dayton, while the constitutional text has not followed these changes.”
When asked about the possibilities for changes to the Constitution of BiH, Ademović responds: “Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic. If we assess the experience from the past period, we see that constitutional and legal development was solely the result of international interventionism.”
When asked what role the Constitutional Court of BiH has in the development of the constitutional and legal order, Ademović responds: “The Constitutional Court of BiH is one of the most successful institutions and projects in BiH. The Constitutional Court of BiH has given legitimacy to many imposed laws and has established a balance between the sovereignty of BiH and international governance.”
After such an admission, any comment on the unconstitutionality and unlawfulness of today’s anti-Dayton BiH is redundant.
The so-called “state judiciary” is a true black pearl of violations not only of the Constitution of BiH but also of the European Convention on Human Rights and numerous other acts of international law, which are an integral part of the Constitution of BiH.
An example of how the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH is prosecuting members of the National Assembly is unlawful violence against the Constitution of BiH: “Delegates and members shall not be considered criminally or civilly liable for any act committed in the course of their duties in the Parliamentary Assembly” and Article 73 of the Constitution of Republika Srpska: “Members of the National Assembly and members of the Council of Peoples shall not be criminally or civilly liable for any action taken within their duties in the National Assembly or the Council of Peoples.”
The political persecution against the President of Republika Srpska through a disgraceful trial before the Court of BiH, based on the indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, for “issuing decrees on the promulgation of laws passed by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, thereby, by not implementing and not enforcing the decisions of High Representative Christian Schmidt, together with Miloš Lukić as the second accused, committed the criminal offense of failing to implement the decisions of the High Representative under Article 203a, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of BiH.
The indictment charged me with violating a decision made by Christian Schmidt, the fake High Representative to BiH, who allegedly prescribed this as a criminal offense and imposed a penalty of six months to five years and a ban on political activity for up to 10 years.
That fraudster was never appointed as the High Representative under Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement, which was signed by Republika Srpska, and according to which the signatory parties “requested the appointment of a High Representative in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council to assist the parties in their efforts to mobilize, and, when necessary, to coordinate the activities of organizations and agencies involved in the civil aspects of the peace settlement.”
The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 1031 of December 15, 1995, determined that: “It supports the establishment of a High Representative at the request of the parties who, in accordance with Annex 10 on the civil implementation of the Peace Agreement, will monitor the implementation of the Peace Agreement, mobilize and, when necessary, direct the involved civil organizations and agencies and coordinate their activities, and grants approval for the appointment of Carl Bildt as the High Representative.”
All others appointed after Carl Bildt were appointed out of inertia, but without the request of the parties as stipulated by Annex 10. However, this was done through UN Security Council resolutions. In contrast, for Christian Schmidt, on May 21, 2021, an unsigned statement was issued on the website of the OHR: “Today, in Sarajevo, the ambassadors of the countries of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council /PIC/ officially appointed Christian Schmidt as the next High Representative to BiH, after he was nominated for this position by Germany.”
This has nothing to do with the Dayton Agreement and its Annex 10, as only the parties to Annex 10 could nominate the High Representative, who would then be confirmed by the UN Security Council. Christian Schmidt’s name was on the agenda of the UN Security Council meeting on July 22, 2021, but the unauthorized and non-binding “ambassadorial appointment” was not confirmed, as Schmidt received only two votes and 13 abstentions.
Thus, Christian Schmidt is not the High Representative under Annex 10, and he is falsely presenting himself as such.
In addition to Republika Srpska, Christian Schmidt is not recognized as the High Representative by China and Russia, permanent members of the UN Security Council. Russia, as one of the signatories of the Dayton Agreement, considers Christian Schmidt a fraudster. I would add – and an incredible liar.
But Christian Schmidt is not the only culprit in this distorted proceedings before the Court of BiH in which I was unjustly sentenced to one year in prison and received a six-year ban on holding political office. The indictment was issued by prosecutor Nedim Ćosić, confirmed by the pre-trial judge Jasmina Dedović Ćosić, the first judge who began the proceedings but then withdrew, and the second judge who pronounced the illegal verdict was Sena Uzunović, all Bosniaks-Muslims.
The khadi /judge/ sues you, the khadi also judges you. But what is even worse is that they sued and put me on trial based on the decision of Christian Schmidt, not according to the Criminal Code of BiH, which states under the “principle of legality”: “Criminal offenses and criminal sanctions can only be prescribed by law.”
No one can be sentenced or subjected to any other criminal sanction for an act that, before it was committed, was not defined by law or international law as a criminal offense, and for which the law did not prescribe a penalty.
Thus, law and only law. But what did Christian Schmidt do, falsely presenting himself as the High Representative? He did not enact a law, but a decision that introduced the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of BiH. However, Schmidt did not write that it becomes an integral part of the Criminal Code of BiH, but instead wrote that “The law that follows and forms an integral part of this decision”.
Therefore, Schmidt’s so-called “law” from his decision never became part of the Criminal Code of BiH, and so I, together with the director of the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska Miloš Lukić could neither be sued, tried, nor sentenced based on such a decision. So who is to blame for this farce and harassment? Is Schmidt the only one responsible, or are the prosecutor and the judge who sued and put me on trial based on Schmidt’s decision, and not according to the law of BiH, even greater culprits?
Source: srna.rs
