BOSNIA - CORRUPTION VERDICTS HIGHLIGHT RULE OF LAW

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SARAJEVO 001088

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SCE(HOH/FOOKS/STINCHOMB); OSD FOR BEIN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/01/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KCRM KJUS KDEM EAID BK
SUBJECT: BOSNIA - CORRUPTION VERDICTS HIGHLIGHT RULE OF LAW
CHALLENGES

REF: A. SARAJEVO 747

B. 07 SARAJEVO 2062

Classified By: DCM Judith Cefkin. Reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Recent verdicts in corruption cases against
senior Bosnian political leaders have highlighted the
vulnerability of the judiciary to political attacks and the
systemic weaknesses in the judicial system that continue to
require the attention of the international community. On
June 24, the court rendered a first instance conviction of
Party for Democratic Progress (PDP) president Mladen Ivanic
for corruption. On June 3, an appellate panel of the State
Court dropped corruption charges against Croat Democratic
Union-BiH (HDZ-BiH) president Dragan Covic. Republika Srpska
(RS) PM Milorad Dodik used the Ivanic verdict to attack the
institution of the State Court and assert that it was
established only to "discipline Serbs and Croats." The Covic
acquittal is an example of the common practice of Bosnian
appellate courts overturning the majority of criminal
convictions, an outcome that is also possible in the Ivanic
case. Nonetheless, the Ivanic conviction will only add to
the hostility of many political leaders, some also facing
allegations of corruption, towards the State Court and will
complicate our efforts to extend international secondees in
the judiciary. Dodik's attack also reinforces the
vulnerability of the judiciary to political pressure and is
yet another example of his long-running campaign to undermine
state-level judicial institutions. END SUMMARY


2. (U) On June 24 the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
found Mladen Ivanic, president of the Party for Democratic
Progress, and House of Peoples delegate, guilty of misuse of
public funds and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. The
charges stem from Ivanic's 2000-2002 term as RS Prime
Minister during which he was accused of improperly using
funds belonging to the state owned Srpske Sume forestry
company. Ivanic was acquitted of charges of abuse of office,
criminal association and bribery. Co-defendant Miro Jurisic,
director of the Trgokomerc company, was found guilty of
bribery and "forestry theft" and sentenced to two years in
prison. Eleven other codefendants associated with the case
were acquitted of all charges. In public statements after
the verdict Ivanic, who was on an official visit to France
when the verdict was read, maintained his innocence and
stated that he would appeal the verdict and that it "will not
have any impact on my political stands." Ivanic subsequently
returned to Bosnia and is awaiting a decision by the court
whether his sentence will be deferred while he pursues his
appeal or whether he must begin serving his prison term.


3. (C) During a June 24 exchange with DAS DiCarlo just prior
to the Peace Implementation Council (PIC),RS PM Milorad
Dodik expressed concern that the Ivanic conviction would not
go down well in the RS, and he implied, would require careful
political management. Shortly after his exchange with DAS
DiCarlo, Dodik stirred up the political tempest he had
expressed concern about by using the verdict to launch an
attack on the State Court and the role of international
secondees in the judiciary. Dodik asserted that the case was
a "staged political process, the goal of which is not justice
but demonstration of force." He stated that the State Court
was established to "discipline Serbs and Croats" and the
verdict constituted "legal dilettantism supported by
international circles. Dodik concluded that the State Court
"destroyed the basic postulates of judiciary" and that "the
RS will do its best to protect its citizens from staged
political processes." Dodik's statement was consistent with
a pattern of attacks on state-level judicial institutions
that go back several months (Ref A).


4. (SBU) The Ivanic verdict followed the June 3 ruling of a
State Court appellate panel which declined to consider, and
returned to a cantonal court, corruption charges against
Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) president Dragan Covic.
Covic was originally convicted in November, 2006 of abuse of
office and sentenced to a five year prison term. In
September, 2007 an appellate court invalidated the conviction
and ordered a retrial of conviction on charges of abuse of
office by a first instance court. The June 3 State Court
decision declining to consider the retrial is all but
equivalent to an acquittal since the case was generated by
the state prosecutors office and there is no political will

SARAJEVO 00001088 002 OF 002


or prosecutorial expertise at the cantonal level to revive
the case. The appellate judges ruled that a German secondee
prosecutor had mischarged the case by pursuing an indictment
on organized crime charges where no evidence of racketeering
or collusion existed. The Covic acquittal prompted
widespread commentary among media observers who asserted that
the case to illustrates that Bosnian political leaders are
above the law.

Comment
--------------


5. (C) Corruption among Bosnia's political leadership is a
serious problem. In addition to retarding the country's
economic development, it has produced a cynical resignation
and apathy among many voters that elections are little more
than an opportunity to replace one set of crooks with
another. Holding political leaders accountable for their
misdeeds is critical to establishing rule of law and
restoring some faith among voters in Bosnia's democracy. The
Ivanic case is a welcome step in this direction. That said,
there remains the prospect that Ivanic's conviction is
overturned on appeal, just as Covic's was. That decision
undercut confidence among average Bosnians about the State
Court's ability to hold political leaders accountable, and it
led to some speculation about the integrity of the appellate
judges themselves. Part of the problem is the appellate
judges at the State Court are unfamiliar with the judicial
concept of "harmless error" and often make decisions to
overturn convictions on the narrowest of technical grounds.
This is one reason why we are supporting State Court
President Kreso's proposal to extend the secondment of
international judges at the Court, but to concentrate them in
appellate rather than first instance panels, as is currently
the case. We can expect sustained resistance from political
parties to maintaining an international presence in the
Special Department for Organized Crime and Corruption,
however, since none of them are eager for aggressive
investigations into their financial shenanigans.
ENGLISH