The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has issued a decision rejecting as unfounded the appeal of Zijad Mutap, the father of Alisa Mutap, a suspect in the "Dženan Memić" case, for concealing evidence.

Mutap was arrested several months ago and is in custody, at the suggestion of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is conducting an investigation.

His lawyers filed an appeal on February 18th, complaining, among other things, the decision to order custody.

Among other things, it was stated that the appellant's defense stated that it considered the motion unfounded and procedurally incorrect. It was pointed out that the motion did not contain the operative part for which the appellant was charged, as well as that there was a difference in the grounds of suspicion communicated to the appellant during the examination in relation to those from the search warrant and those set forth in the custody motion. The defense pointed out that they were not able to state their grounded suspicion, since no evidence had been submitted to them. In addition, it was pointed out that there are no special reasons from Article 132, paragraph 1, items b) and d) of the CPC of B&H.

Further, the appeal alleges that the allegations of his defense were not actually considered either from the custody hearing or from the appeal.

However, the Constitutional Court of B&H states in its decision:

"The Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of Article II / 3.d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention when the court in the custody procedure found that there are reasons the conclusion gave a clear explanation, both in terms of the existence of reasonable suspicion and in terms of the existence of special reasons for ordering detention under Article 132, paragraph 1, items b) and d) of the CPC of B&H.

The Constitutional Court also concludes that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention as it has not found that the appellant has been denied the opportunity to effectively challenge the Prosecution's submissions relevant to the extension of his detention. "