The recent case of “Miodrag Malić”, as well as the earlier “Vojin Pavlović” case, represent a turning point in a dangerous process in which the criminal justice system of Bosnia and Herzegovina is being used as an instrument of political engineering of history, identity, and the country’s constitutional order, assessed Siniša Karan, professor of constitutional law.
Karan stated that these verdicts are not isolated legal cases, but part of a broader, long-term process in which courts are being used to construct a new, one-sided political “truth” about the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
He pointed out that this is no longer about individual criminal acts, but about an attempt at judicial revision of the character of the war, in which it is artificially and unilaterally constructed who is a victim and who an aggressor, who a criminal and who bears political and historical responsibility.
According to Professor Karan, this represents a life-threatening precedent for Bosnia and Herzegovina, because the judiciary is assuming the role of historiography, politics, and constitution-making.
“As has been emphasized many times, the pain of mothers in black and white headscarves is the same, but unfortunately not everyone thinks so. No victim must be abused for political purposes, and likewise no individual should be silenced with prison for carrying someone’s photograph,” Karan stressed.
However, he said, legal mechanisms are now being used to create a narrative in which the Serb people are collectively criminalized, and Republika Srpska is stigmatized as a “genocidal creation.”
He emphasized that such a narrative has no foundation in international law, the Dayton Peace Agreement, or historical facts.
“These verdicts are a direct consequence of the imposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2021 by Valentin Inzko, adopted without a democratic procedure, without the participation of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and without the consent of the entities and constituent peoples.”
“This is a legal precedent that violates the principles of constitutionality and legitimacy of the criminal justice system. The right to freedom of expression is also being violated. It is absurd that in the 21st century a person is sentenced to prison for holding up someone’s picture,” Karan stated.
According to him, criminal law, as the most intensive form of state repression, must rest on the principle of democratic legitimacy; otherwise, it becomes an instrument of political domination and ideological hegemony.
He noted that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the “Malić” and “Pavlović” cases, applied Article 145a of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which sanctions incitement to national, racial, and religious hatred and is part of the imposed legal package.
“This shows that the legal basis itself is politically controversial and was introduced without procedure,” Karan added.
He said that such verdicts are part of a broader package of pressure that includes the actions of an illegitimate High Representative, the political instrumentalization of the judiciary, and attempts to unitarize Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“The goal is the complete dismantling of the Dayton structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the creation of a centralized, unitary state dominated by a single political and national vision,” he warned.
Karan explained that the verdict against Malić represents continuity of the same policy that sought to abolish the coat of arms, anthem, and Day of Republika Srpska, under the pretext that they “offend,” “remind,” or disturb someone’s feelings.
“In that narrative, everything that is Serb becomes a problem, everything with historical and identity continuity is declared a provocation, and the only acceptable thing is submissive politics and acceptance of someone else’s interpretation of history. Apparently, they will only not be offended by those who accept that they are the sole victims and we the aggressors, who accept their history, their politics, and their vision of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Karan said.
Essentially, he noted, this is an attack on the constitutional identity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on the principle of constituent peoples, entity autonomy, and a complex state structure. Any attempt to change the historical narrative of the war and the character of the state through court verdicts represents a direct attack on Annex IV of the Dayton Agreement.”
“The judiciary has no constitutional mandate to write history, define collective guilt, or reshape the state. History cannot be written through verdicts, just as peace cannot be built on falsifications,” Karan emphasized.
Professor Karan concluded by saying that Republika Srpska will continue to defend truth, constitutionality, and the Dayton structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“The struggle for the constitutional identity of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a struggle for peace, stability, and equality of peoples.”
Source: RTRS
