KAD SUDIJA NE MOŽE IZDRŽATI JAVNOST SVOG RADA – I KAD JOJ SE OBJASNI DA BI KRIVIČNA PRIJAVA BILA SUDIJSKO SAMOUBISTVO

(ovaj nastavak se dostavlja VSTV BiH, POSKOK-u, Tužilaštvu BiH, ambasadama u BiH, svim međunarodnim organizacijama i svim domaćim i međunarodnim medijima)

Piše: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba

Do mene dolaze informacije iz suda da sudija Svetlana Stevanović, navodno, više ne može izdržati javno pisanje o vlastitim odlukama i da je, prema tim informacijama, htjela da pored disciplinske prijave i krivičnim putem pokuša zaustaviti daljnju kritiku i pisanje medija i autora.

Da li je to tačno – ne želim da tvrdim.
Da li bi bilo iznenađenje – ne bi.

Ali je jednako važno reći i sljedeće:
prema istim informacijama, upućeni su joj vrlo jasni savjeti od razumnih sudija da bi takav potez bio potpuno poguban po nju kao sudiju.

Ne zato što je neko brani – ili nekoga brani.
Ne zato što bi joj neko „stao na put“.
Nego zato što bi sama sebe pravno eliminisala iz suda.

I zato ovdje stajemo, hladimo ton i stvari postavljamo tamo gdje jedino imaju smisla – u pravo i u zakon.

Jer, ako bi sudija pokušala krivičnom prijavom, pod plaštom navodnog „psihičkog zlostavljanja“, zaustaviti novinarsku kritiku i javno pisanje o njenim javnim sudskim odlukama, poništavanim od strane kantonalnog suda u Tuzli – tada više ne govorimo o povrijeđenom egu.

Tada govorimo o institucionalnom problemu „problematične sudije“ sa tačno određenim zakonskim posljedicama.

OVO NIJE PITANJE OSTAVKE – OVO JE PITANJE ZAKONSKE (NE)SPOSOBNOSTI DA SE BUDE SUDIJA

U prethodnim tekstovima spominjala se riječ ostavka.
U ovom kontekstu – ona više nije pravno relevantna.

Ako bi sudija sama tvrdila ili implicitno priznala da:

• ne može psihički izdržati javnu kritiku,
• osjeća se zlostavljanom zbog medijskog izvještavanja,
• objavu vlastitih sudskih odluka doživljava kao napad na ličnost,
• ima duševne smetnje zbog transparentnosti rada,
• i to pokušava rješavati krivičnim instrumentima,

onda to nije pravno pitanje,
nije ni medijsko pitanje,
nego isključivo pitanje (ne)sposobnosti za vršenje sudijske dužnosti.

U tom trenutku ne postoji dilema:
ne radi se o ostavci,
nego o prestanku mandata po sili zakona.

I upravo zbog toga su joj, kako saznajemo, savjetovali da to ne radi.

Jer bi takav potez bio sudačko samoubistvo.

ZAKON O VSTV BiH – JASAN, HLADAN I BEZ EMOCIJA – NEUMOLJIV

Član 75. Zakona o VSTV BiH izričito propisuje:

„Ured disciplinskog tužioca istražuje i zastupa predmete koji se odnose na fizičku, emocionalnu, mentalnu ili drugu nesposobnost sudije ili tužioca koja zahtijeva trajno ili privremeno udaljavanje sudije ili tužioca od vršenja dužnosti ili prestanak mandata.“

Drugim riječima:

Ako sudija sama sebe dovede u poziciju da tvrdi kako ne može psihički izdržati javnost i kritiku za odluke koje donosi (i koje poništava Kantonalni sud),
ona će sama sebe – automatski – brisati iz sudske evidencije. Valja joj se prijaviti na biro za zapošljavanje.

Bez ikakve zavjere.
Bez ičije zlobe.
Bez medija.

To je čista norma.

KRIVIČNO PRAVO NIJE ALAT ZA GAŠENJE KRITIKE

Posebno je važno da se ovo javno i jasno kaže:

Da nikome ne padne na pamet da se poziva na eventualno krivično procesuiranje pod plaštom „psihičkog zlostavljanja“ kako bi se ušutkala kritika sudija i njihovog rada.

Jer, ako bi se profesionalno, dokumentovano i istinito pisanje o:

• osumnjičenima,
• optuženima,
• pritvorenima,
• osuđenima,
• sudijama i njihovim odlukama,

moglo kvalifikovati kao krivično djelo –
onda bi Bosna i Hercegovina morala prestati biti država.

Zašto?

Zato što javnost i transparentnost rada suda nije krivično djelo.
To je ustavna kategorija.

KRIVIČNO PRAVO SE NE KORISTI KAO ŠTIT OD ISTINE

Posebno je problematična „ideja“ da se medijsko izvještavanje i profesionalna i istinita kritika sudskih odluka pokušava ugurati u krivičnopravne odredbe o psihičkom nasilju ili zlostavljanju.

Jer, da budemo potpuno jasni:

Ako bi se javno pisanje o osumnjičenima, optuženima, pritvorenima, osuđenima ili sudijama smatralo:

• „psihičkim nasiljem“,
• „zlostavljanjem“,
• ili „narušavanjem psihičkog integriteta“,

onda bi u Bosni i Hercegovini morali uhapsiti pola tužilaštava, sudova i sve portparole, jer svakodnevno putem informacionih tehnologija javno saopštavaju:

• ko je osumnjičen,
• ko je pritvoren,
• i ko je optužen ili osuđen,

To se, naravno, ne radi.

Zašto?

Zato što je javnost ustavna kategorija, a ne krivično djelo.

Sutkinja Svetlana možda nije ni pročitala da je članom II Ustava BiH u tački 2. propisano – „Međunarodni standardi – Prava i slobode predviđeni u Evropskoj konvenciji za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda i u njenim protokolima se direktno primjenjuju u Bosni i Hercegovini. Ovi akti imaju prioritet nad svim ostalim zakonima“.

U EKLJP u članu 10. stoji, i dan danas – „Sloboda izražavanja 1. Svako ima pravo na slobodu izražavanja. Ovo pravo uključuje slobodu mišljenja i slobodu primanja i prenošenja informacija i ideja, bez miješanja

USTAV I EVROPSKA KONVENCIJA – IZNAD LIČNIH DOŽIVLJAJA

Član II Ustava BiH propisuje da se Evropska konvencija o ljudskim pravima direktno primjenjuje i ima prioritet nad svim zakonima.

A član 10. EKLJP jasno kaže:

„Svako ima pravo na slobodu izražavanja… bez miješanja javne vlasti.“

To važi i za sudije.
Posebno za sudije.

AKO NEKO ZLOUPOTREBLJAVA POLOŽAJ – TO NIJE NOVINAR

Ako bi se, hipotetički, pokazalo da neko, pa bio to i sudija, pokušava:

• krivičnim pritiskom ušutkati medije zbog osnovane kritike,
• zloupotrijebiti službeni položaj da bi se zaustavilo izvještavanje javnosti,
• ili instrumentalizirati krivično pravo radi lične zaštite,

onda bi fokus morao biti upravo suprotan.

Jer Krivični zakon FBiH jasno poznaje i:

• psihičko nasilje i zlostavljanje u obavljanju službe.

Sutkinja Svetlana bi pored prestanka mandata sudije mogla zaraditi i novu krivičnu prijavu – Krivični zakon FBiH – „Član 182

Zlostavljanje u obavljanju službe

Službena osoba koja u obavljanju službe drugog zlostavlja, nanosi mu teže tjelesne ili duševne patnje, zastrašuje ga ili vrijeđa, kaznit će se kaznom zatvora od tri mjeseca do pet godina”.

POSKOK protiv Svetlane zbog suđenja već vodi istragu u predmetu broj: T 21 0 KT 000483 25

Ali ovdje ne treba prijetiti, niti nagađati.

Cilj je da se jasno razumije pravna granica.

Dovoljno je postaviti logično pitanje Uredu disciplinskog tužioca Visokog sudskog i tužilačkog vijeća BiH:

Da li sudija koja ne može podnijeti kritiku i javnost svog rada može obavljati sudijsku funkciju?

Pravo na to pitanje već ima odgovor – zakonski.

NIJE PROBLEM U TEKSTOVIMA – PROBLEM JE U ODLUKAMA

Feljton ne piše o privatnom životu.
Ne piše se o emocijama.
Ne piše se o tračevima.

Piše se o:

• javnim sudskim rješenjima,
• koja su dva puta poništena kao nezakonita od strane Kantonalnog suda u Tuzli,
• i o reakcijama sudije koja ih je donijela, a posebno u disciplinskom postupku.

Ako neko to ne može izdržati –
problem nije u medijima.

Problem je u izboru profesije.

Ako sudija to ne može izdržati –
onda ne treba da mijenja medije.

Treba da se zapita da li treba mijenjati posao.

ZAVRŠNI STAV

Ako su tačne informacije da se traži krivična odgovornost zbog pisanja o sudskim odlukama –
to neće zaustaviti javnost.

To će samo ubrzati ono što pravo već predviđa i bez toga…

razrješenje sudije koja nije sposobna da obavlja dužnost u uslovima transparentnosti i javne kontrole.

To bi bio najbrži put do prestanka mandata.

Ovaj tekst nije prijetnja.
Nije ni nagađanje.

Ovo je upozorenje zasnovano na zakonu,
da svi – ne samo Svetlana – znaju:

pozivanje na psihičko stanje radi ušutkivanja javnosti briše sudiju iz sistema.

Bez galame.
Bez patetike.
Bez emocija.

Samo zakon.
I malo zdravog razuma.

Serijal se nastavlja.

WHEN A JUDGE CANNOT WITHSTAND PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF HER WORK – AND WHEN IT IS EXPLAINED TO HER THAT A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WOULD AMOUNT TO JUDICIAL SELF-DESTRUCTION

(This installment is delivered to the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HJPC BiH), POSKOK, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, embassies in BiH, all international organizations, and all domestic and international media.)

THE COURT AND I – Svetlana Stevanović
Serial
Written by: Danijel Senkić / Dokumentovano.ba

Information has reached me from within the court suggesting that Judge Svetlana Stevanović allegedly can no longer endure public writing about her own decisions and that, according to these reports, she intended—beyond a disciplinary complaint—to attempt, through criminal proceedings, to stop further criticism and media writing.

Whether this is true—I do not claim.
Would it be surprising—it would not.

But it is equally important to state the following:

According to the same information, very clear advice was given to her by reasonable judges that such a move would be completely devastating for her as a judge.

Not because someone would protect her—or protect anyone else.
Not because someone would “stand in her way.”
But because she would legally eliminate herself from the judiciary.

That is why we stop here, lower the tone, and place things where they alone make sense—in law and legality.

Because if a judge were to attempt, by means of a criminal complaint under the guise of alleged “psychological abuse,” to silence journalistic criticism and public writing about her public judicial decisions, which have been annulled by the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, then we would no longer be speaking of a wounded ego.

We would be speaking of an institutional problem of a “problematic judge”, with clearly defined legal consequences.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF RESIGNATION – THIS IS A QUESTION OF LEGAL (IN)CAPACITY TO SERVE AS A JUDGE

In previous texts, the word resignation was mentioned.
In this context—it is no longer legally relevant.

If a judge were to assert or implicitly acknowledge that she:

• cannot psychologically withstand public criticism,
  • feels abused by media reporting,
  • perceives the publication of her own judicial decisions as a personal attack,
  • experiences mental distress due to transparency of work,
  • and seeks to resolve this through criminal-law instruments,

then this is not a legal debate,
nor a media issue,
but exclusively a question of (in)capacity to perform judicial duties.

At that point, there is no dilemma:

this is not about resignation,
but about termination of mandate by operation of law.

And precisely for that reason, as we learn, she was advised not to do this.
Because such a step would amount to judicial suicide.

THE LAW ON THE HJPC BIH – CLEAR, COLD, AND WITHOUT EMOTION – UNFORGIVING

Article 75 of the Law on the HJPC BiH explicitly provides:

“The Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor investigates and prosecutes cases relating to physical, emotional, mental, or other incapacity of a judge or prosecutor that requires the permanent or temporary removal of a judge or prosecutor from office or termination of the mandate.”

In other words:

If a judge places herself in a position of claiming that she cannot psychologically endure publicity and criticism of the decisions she renders (and which are annulled by the Cantonal Court),
she would automatically erase herself from the judicial registry.

No conspiracy.
No malice.
No media pressure.

Just the norm.

CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT A TOOL FOR SILENCING CRITICISM

It must be stated publicly and clearly:

No one should even consider invoking criminal prosecution under the guise of “psychological abuse” to silence criticism of judges and their work.

Because if professional, documented, and truthful writing about:

• suspects,
  • defendants,
  • detainees,
  • convicted persons,
  • judges and their decisions,

could be qualified as a criminal offense—
then Bosnia and Herzegovina would cease to be a state.

Why?

Because publicity and transparency of judicial work are not criminal offenses.
They are constitutional categories.

CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT A SHIELD AGAINST THE TRUTH

The idea of forcing media reporting and professional, truthful criticism of judicial decisions into criminal-law provisions on psychological violence or abuse is particularly problematic.

Let us be perfectly clear:

If public writing about suspects, defendants, detainees, convicted persons, or judges were considered:

• “psychological violence,”
  • “abuse,”
  • or “violation of mental integrity,”

then half of the prosecutors’ offices, courts, and all spokespersons would have to be arrested—because they daily, through information technologies, publicly announce:

• who is suspected,
  • who is detained,
  • and who is charged or convicted.

That, of course, does not happen.

Why?

Because publicity is a constitutional category, not a criminal offense.

Judge Svetlana may not have read that Article II(2) of the Constitution of BiH provides:

“The rights and freedoms provided for in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These instruments shall have priority over all other laws.”

And Article 10 of the ECHR still states today:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference…”

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION – ABOVE PERSONAL PERCEPTIONS

Article II of the Constitution of BiH establishes the direct applicability and supremacy of the European Convention.

Article 10 of the ECHR clearly provides:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression… without interference by public authority.”

This applies to judges as well.
Especially to judges.

IF SOMEONE ABUSES POWER – IT IS NOT THE JOURNALIST

If, hypothetically, it were shown that someone—even a judge—attempts to:

• silence the media through criminal pressure due to justified criticism,
  • abuse official position to stop public reporting,
  • or instrumentalize criminal law for personal protection,

then the focus must be reversed.

Because the Criminal Code of the Federation of BiH clearly recognizes:

• abuse in the performance of official duty.

Judge Svetlana, in addition to termination of judicial mandate, could earn a new criminal complaint under the Criminal Code of the FBiH:

Article 182 – Abuse in the Performance of Official Duty

“An official who, in the performance of official duty, abuses another person, inflicts severe bodily or mental suffering, intimidates or insults them, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to five years.”

POSKOK is already conducting an investigation concerning her adjudication in Case No. T 21 0 KT 000483 25.

But this is not about threats or speculation.
The aim is to clearly understand the legal boundary.

It is sufficient to pose a logical question to the Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor of the HJPC BiH:

Can a judge who cannot endure criticism and public scrutiny of her work perform judicial duties?

The law already has an answer to that question.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT IN THE TEXTS – THE PROBLEM IS IN THE DECISIONS

This serial does not write about private life.
It does not write about emotions.
It does not write about gossip.

It writes about:

• public judicial decisions,
  • which have been annulled twice as unlawful by the Cantonal Court in Tuzla,
  • and about the reactions of the judge who rendered them—particularly in disciplinary proceedings.

If someone cannot endure that—
the problem is not with the media.

The problem is with the choice of profession.

If a judge cannot endure this—
she should not seek to change the media.
She should ask herself whether she needs to change jobs.

FINAL POSITION

If information is accurate that criminal responsibility is being sought because of writing about judicial decisions—

this will not stop the public.

It will only accelerate what the law already provides regardless:

the removal of a judge who is incapable of performing judicial duties under conditions of transparency and public oversight.

That would be the fastest route to termination of mandate.

This text is not a threat.
Nor speculation.

This is a warning grounded in law,
so that everyone—not only Svetlana—understands:

invoking psychological condition to silence the public erases a judge from the system.

No shouting.
No pathos.
No emotion.

Just the law.
And a bit of common sense.

The series continues.