Attorney Anto Nobilo said that power in BiH should be returned to the legally elected representatives of the people, because the real problems in BiH are not the relations between Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs, but foreigners /not just the High Representative/ who are plundering the country.
Nobilo emphasized that the dismantling of Republika Srpska through the removal of President Milorad Dodik from office is not an end in itself, but the essence is who will exploit the mineral wealth in the territory of Srpska.
“Whose mineral wealth is beneath the ground in the territory of Republika Srpska? Does it belong to Srpska or the central authorities in Sarajevo? And there are minerals, and in serious quantities, including those that are in high demand. The point is, who will exploit these minerals? Foreign masters or the domestic government? This is the essence, and everything else is just a show for the masses,” said Nobilo.
In response to the accusations by a former member of the BiH Presidency, Ivo Komšić, that his acceptance of defending the President of Srpska Dodik, “is not in line with legal and moral dignity,” Nobilo said that he had never heard anything more foolish and contrary to the achievements of civilization.
Nobilo sent a message to Ivo Komšić, saying that his views on how lawyers should function are anti-civilizational and stem from ignorance and deep divisions in society.
“Such views from Ivo Komšić imply the conclusion that no morally honorable lawyer should take on the defense of Milorad Dodik!?” said Nobilo.
He also asked Komšić who would be the moral police in BiH, determining which people would have the right to a lawyer and who would be tried without a defense attorney.
“Or will Dodik and those like him not be tried at all? They will be immediately declared guilty,” added Nobilo.
He emphasized that his work is based on the Constitution, the Law on Advocacy, and the ethical code and that when he takes someone as a client, he does not ask about their nationality, religion, or political beliefs. He also said that he could and should defend every person, even when he does not agree with the views and behavior of the client.
Nobilo noted that every citizen has the right to a fair trial and an impartial court.
Komšić claims: “The indictment is clear. Milorad Dodik is guilty…” If Dodik is guilty according to the indictment, then we again come to the conclusion that he does not need a defense attorney or a trial, because the prosecutor wrote that Dodik is guilty. Someone should explain to Mr. Komšić that the indictment describes a reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a criminal offense, and only a court verdict determines that someone is guilty,” said Nobilo.
He emphasized that he has not commented on the court ruling, although he will, but has commented on the right to a fair trial.
“You say that I interpret legal disputes with political arguments. Together with my colleagues /I was only a legal advisor from Croatia, and didn’t have the status of a defense attorney/, I presented exclusively legal arguments in court. However, the context of the trial is purely political. It is clear to everyone that political opponents of President Dodik decided to politically eliminate him through a criminal procedure,” concluded Nobilo in his article.
He emphasized that this was a purely political trial and that the case is essentially a political and legal problem, as well as a constitutional and international issue, and at the very least, a criminal one, which is obvious at first glance.
“In an attempt to discredit me, Komšić `knows` that I `did it` only for a large fee. That I sold myself. Mr. Komšić, what about the evidence? Or do you think that your ‘accusation’ is enough to determine guilt? Such conclusions reflect the state of mind of Mr. Komšić. They talk about how he would behave if he were in my position,” said Nobilo.
He added that he accepted the defense of President Dodik because such a case cannot be rejected, as it has both legal and political significance, and because, through it, the fate of BiH is determined.
“Because I hate the abuse of criminal law for political purposes. Because BiH, as the last European protectorate, is legally interesting to study. You can’t find this anywhere else. Because the international legal mechanism from Dayton to today represents a challenge to study. Because in legally governed countries, such proceedings are no longer conducted. Because all of this together creates adrenaline for me, and that is my fuel,” said Nobilo.
Explaining why BiH has elements of a protectorate and the actual role of the High Representative, Nobilo said that the High Representative does not have legislative powers, that his work is regulated by Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement, and that the BiH Constitution does not recognize the institution of the High Representative.
He said that the tasks of the High Representative are described through monitoring the implementation of the Agreement, participation in meetings, close contact with the parties /signatories/, mediation, reporting, and coordination of activities of civil organizations and agencies.
“The most controversial part is the one that gives /the high representative/ the authority to issue binding interpretations. However, an interpretation of regulations cannot create new laws but only clarify the existing ones. Interpretation should be understood in a judicial sense, as determining the true meaning of a written document,” explained Nobilo.
He added that nowhere in Annex 10 are the legislative powers of the High Representative defined.
“The High Representative /OHR/ has a function of supporting others, being a catalyst, not the authority to forcibly impose laws, as this would certainly not `ease their efforts`. This conclusion is even stronger when considering the BiH Constitution, which is part of the Dayton Agreement, and which exclusively regulates the right of the BiH Parliamentary Assembly to enact laws,” emphasized Nobilo.
He added that the High Representative, clearly aware that the Dayton Agreement does not provide a legal basis for imposing laws, introduces a new “legal basis” through the so-called Bonn Powers, that is, the conclusions of the Peace Implementation Conference held in Bonn on December 9 and 10, 1997.
“With this conclusion, the Conference welcomed the High Representative’s intention to make binding decisions as temporary when deemed necessary. All decisions of the Peace Implementation Council /PIC/ or the Conference itself are purely political, not legal in nature. Founding legislative activity on a political decision destroys the international legal order and introduces political power instead of international law,” emphasized Nobilo.
He explained that the text of the conclusions suggests that the binding decisions of the High Representative, characterized as temporary measures, apply to the executive branch, the Presidency, or the Council of Ministers, but not to the legislative branch.
“In the so-called Bonn Powers, there is no mention of the right to enact laws, as the OHR later interpreted it within BiH,” emphasized Nobilo.
He also reminded of the stance of the Venice Commission, which said in 2005: “In short, the need for the High Representative to have broad powers certainly existed in the early period after the conclusion of the Dayton Agreement. However, such an arrangement is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic character of the state and the sovereignty of BiH. The longer it exists, the more problematic it becomes.”
Nobilo said that Christian Schmidt was not legally appointed as High Representative, that he was appointed by the Steering Board of the PIC, despite the disapproval of many PIC members, and that the UN Security Council did not make such a decision, even though, according to Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement, the Security Council approves the appointment of the High Representative.
He added that despite international law, the Steering Board of the PIC imposed Christian Schmidt as High Representative.
Nobilo pointed out that the position of High Representative is an anachronism, something that should have been abolished three to five years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement. However, contrary to this, Western countries, through the force of a policy known as “soft power,” expanded their powers beyond the Constitution of BiH, without any citizen vote in BiH.
“The High Representative in its current format is the biggest obstacle to the development of democratic institutions in BiH. The current High Representative, like no one before him, performs his function in the style of colonial rulers with the support of `servants of foreign masters,`” emphasized Nobilo.
To explain how this has led to the legal proceedings against the President of Republika Srpska, he pointed out that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, in its closing remarks, said that they work based on the laws and instructions of the OHR. He said that not only is it shocking that they do this, but it is even worse that they are not aware that it is illegal, as it undermines the very essence of the prosecutor’s office, which must operate based on the constitution and laws, independent of the influence of the executive branch.
“These prosecutors have worked in the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH for so long under the authority of the High Representative, that they believe such work is normal and legal. This is just one example of the results of the thirty-year work of the High Representative on the functioning of the rule of law in BiH. Such work is detrimental to BiH,” emphasized Nobilo.
Source: srna.rs
