The cantonal court in Tuzla made a clear decision: the production of that evidence is prohibited, because it contradicts Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, Alibegović claims.
Can evidence collected through the interception of communications from the Sky application be used in court proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
The Supreme Court of FBiH made a decision two years ago that the evidence from the Sky application is legal and can be used in court proceedings. In addition, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has already passed judgments in cases where correspondence from the Sky application was used as evidence.
However, the lawyer from Tuzla, Mirna Alibegović, claims that the Cantonal Court in Tuzla recently stated in a judgment that these correspondences cannot be used because they violate the provisions of international conventions on the protection of human rights.
The TK Prosecutor’s Office announced that this is a case in which Beriz Kabilović was sentenced to 19 and Armin Halilović to 6.5 years in prison. In the information of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Turkey, it is stated that in this case the evidence from the Sky application was not even used, because the French authorities did not send it within the time limit for the verdict. According to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Turkey, this delay is the only reason why the evidence from the Sky application was not accepted in this case.
However, Alibegović maintained her position that the evidence from the Sky application was not accepted due to a possible violation of the human rights of the accused, claiming that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Turkish Republic presented untruths in its statement.
– In the proceedings, the Prosecution, among other things, proposed evidence obtained through the Sky application. The cantonal court in Tuzla made a clear decision: the production of that evidence is prohibited, because it contradicts Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, Alibegović claims.
She also added that she had previously clarified that the Prosecution’s allegations about the “rush of the court” or the “expiration of custody” as reasons for rejecting evidence are absolutely untrue.
– In the legal documentation, which includes several pages of expert analysis, it is clearly explained: that the court must examine the method of gathering evidence, that evidence obtained through mass surveillance without a court order violates basic human rights, that Sky Ecc data cannot be used because it is not possible to verify the method of obtaining it, the authenticity, or the legality of the monitoring of communication that was carried out in a foreign country.
The text of the verdict also states that the acceptance of such evidence would be contrary to the European Convention and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the court cannot base its decision on evidence whose legality cannot be verified, Alibegović points out, adding that the Prosecution is trying to relativize the fact that the evidence is illegal.
He emphasizes that now, when the decision does not suit them, the Prosecution is trying to create a wrong image in the public.
– It is obvious that such an address is an attempt to dispute the fact that the Sky evidence was declared illegal, and to minimize the consequences of such a decision. But to no avail — because the explanation of the verdict says it all, Alibegović states.
(TYPE/Source: Liberation/Photo: Internet)
