in the case of

SAVO IVANOVIC v. THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Case No. CH/98/548)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The applicant is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Montenegrin origin. In 1992 he was convicted by the Sarajevo High Court of war crimes against the civilian population and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed the judgment in December 1992. In September 1996 the applicant submitted a petition for the reopening of the criminal proceedings, which after several decisions by the Cantonal Court Sarajevo (previously the High Court) and the Supreme Court of The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was finally rejected on 10 February 1998.

The applicant complained of a violation of his right to an impartial tribunal, on the ground that one of the judges of the Supreme Court panel rejected his petition to reopen the case in February 1998 had also been a member of the Supreme Court panel that confirmed his conviction in 1992. He also complained that he did not receive a fair trial in the proceedings upon his petition to reopen the case. The case raised issues under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The Chamber considered that the panel of the Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina that decided on the appeal against the first instance conviction and the panel of the Supreme Court of the Federation that decided on the appeal against the Cantonal Court’s decision of 5 November 1997 were called on to decide substantially different questions. On the first occasion, the Supreme Court was confronted with a sweeping appeal directed against the evaluation of the evidence by the first instance court. In 1998 the Supreme Court found that the issue before it was limited to the question whether the expert’s opinion was to be considered “new evidence” within the meaning of Article 404 paragraph 1(4) of the Federation Law on Criminal Procedure. Considering the difference in subject and nature of the issues under scrutiny by the two Supreme Court panels in which the same judge took part, the Chamber concluded that there was no legitimate reason for the applicant to fear a lack of impartiality on the side of that judge. The Chamber, therefore, did not find that the application revealed a violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention in this respect.

The Chamber considered that it could not find that the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s final decision of 10 February 1998, by which the applicant’s petition for the reopening of the criminal proceedings was finally rejected, was grossly inadequate and devoid of the appearance of fairness. The Chamber accordingly concluded that also in this respect the application did not reveal a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial.

For the above reasons, the Chamber decided that the application does not reveal a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Decision delivered 6 July 2000