The Sarajevo Municipal Court issued a press release today explaining why Abdulah Hajdarević, who threatened Senad Hadžifejzović, the owner and editor of Face TV, imposed prohibiting measures instead of detention.
-Case No. 65 0 K 908432 21 Kpp is in the investigation phase with the Cantonal Prosecutor's Office of Sarajevo Canton, and during the investigation phase this Court acted upon the proposal of the competent Prosecutor's Office to order custody measures against the suspect Abdulah Hajdarević. On May 31st, 2021, acting ex officio, the Court, in accordance with the legal deadline, imposed the measures of prohibition against the suspect, for which there were conditions fulfilled by law:
- A measure prohibiting visiting and approaching at a distance of less than 100 m to the premises of the television company Face TV, or the company "Face" d.o.o. Sarajevo;
- A measure prohibiting meeting with certain persons, in such way that the suspect is prohibited from communicating and contacting the injured party S.H. in any way, directly and indirectly and to approach him at a distance of less than 100m, and the suspect was ordered to report to the Novi Grad Police Station, Sarajevo, once a week, every Monday from 7 AM to 3 PM - they say from the Municipal Court.
In the continuation of the statement, the court states that the decision on the pronounced measures of prohibition was the subject of review by the Criminal Council, and on the appeal of the Cantonal Prosecutor's Office of Sarajevo Canton, the appeal was rejected as unfounded and the decision was upheld.
-The Court notes that the basic condition for ordering custody due to the particular danger of recidivism, which was the Prosecution's motion in this case, is that there is evidence to indicate that the suspect committed a criminal offense punishable by three years' imprisonment or heavier punishment. Considering that in analyzing the Prosecution's evidence, the Court found that this case was not a criminal offense punishable by three years' imprisonment, the Court, acting ex officio, pursuant to Article 140a, paragraph 1, items b, c, id of the Criminal Procedure Code of FB&H, made a decision to impose the above measures - it is written in the statement.
In the following, the court states that the specific case was acted within the legally prescribed deadlines and in a lawful manner.
- Inaccurate reporting to the public on the subject procedure has an inappropriate influence on the independent work of the court, whereby the public is misinformed and leads to wrong conclusions that the court did not act correctly. The court calls on the media to check all information about the work of this court before publishing, noting that transparency is one of our main goals, which is why the court responds to all inquiries from journalists and citizens as soon as possible - they concluded in a statement.
