With reference to many inquiries in relation to the Accused Milomir Savčić, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina /BiH/ recalls that its official press release of 11 August 2021 clarified the procedural-legal situation. The release is available on the following link: http://www.sudbih.gov.ba/vijest/javno-saopenje-21579
The Court once again recalls that under the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH /CPC BiH/, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH is the body responsible for prosecution and the Court renders its decisions on pre-trial custody on the basis of motions and evidence filed by a Prosecutor. In other words, Court’s actions are conditioned by a Prosecutor’s motion.
In addition, the Court informs the public that after the Accused Milomir Savčić became unavailable to the judiciary of BiH the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH filed a new motion on 17 August 2021, seeking that the Accused Milomir Savčić be ordered into pre-trial custody; the Prosecutor’s Office based its motion on Article 132(1)(a) of the CPC BiH - RISK OF FLIGHT. It is surprising that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH did not inform the public about that, deviating from its regular practice of issuing press releases when filing motions to the Court. Furthermore, the Court is not and could not be aware of reasons for which the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH did not include the RISK OF FLIGHT ground in its original motion seeking pre-trial custody but did that subsequently, after the Accused Milomir Savčić escaped. By virtue of its statutory position, the Court must not and cannot influence what the Prosecutor’s Office would propose; rather, the Court rules on what has been proposed.
The new media reports on this procedural situation linked to this morning’s press releases by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH are obvious twists of logic the purpose of which is to misinform the public.
Media articles about the Accused Milomir Savčić, published by certain media in the past few days concerning the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, pertain to circumstances that occurred two years ago (in 2019) and are not linked to the procedural situation from August this year. The Prosecutor’s Office commented this morning on the situation from August, failing to provide answers to new media information about internal actions of the Prosecutor’s Office in 2019. At that time the Court, acting upon a motion by the Prosecutor’s Office, issued and duly delivered to the Prosecutor’s Office an order to carry out a search, but the Court has not officially received any information as to the reason why that order was not carried out.