From the failure to charge the main suspects in the murder of Kosovo Serb politician Oliver Ivanovic to delays, escapes and procedural mishaps, the trial cast a harsh light on a justice system in urgent need of reform.
The murder of Oliver Ivanovic, a prominent Kosovo Serb politician, killed in front of his party offices in North Mitrovica in January 2018, has cast a harsh spotlight on the failings within Kosovo’s justice system.
The trial, marred by procedural violations and administrative inefficiencies, underscored the system’s inability to administer justice effectively, from the investigation stage through to the verdict.
From the outset in 2021, the trial was plagued by procedural irregularities. Court hearings were frequently delayed due to issues such as the improper delivery of court summonses and incomplete documentation for the defence, leading to a chaotic and protracted process.
Furthermore, the failure to translate documents on time into Serbian – an official language in Kosovo and the native language of the defendants – resulted in hearings being postponed multiple times.
However, the problems ran deeper than logistical mishaps. The indictment failed to charge the main suspects who have been out of reach of Kosovo’s authorities and there were crucial delays in finalising investigations.
Flawed indictment ignored key suspects
The indictment submitted by the Special Prosecutor’s Office glaringly omitted two key suspects believed to be the principal executors of Ivanovic’s murder – Kosovo Serb kingpin Milan Radoicic and businessman Zvonko Veselinovic. Both have denied any involvement.
During the judicial process, the prosecution’s case further unravelled. Lacking adequate evidence, it ultimately retracted charges against one suspect, Rade Basare, who had been wrongfully accused of participating in the murder.
The indictment had claimed that Basara had acted “as a member of an organised criminal group together with Milan Radoicic, Zvonko Veselinovic and Zeljko Bojic, who are at large, and intentionally participated in the criminal actions of the group knowing that such participation would contribute to realising the criminal activities of the group”.
This about-face during the closing arguments on June 21 highlighted the inadequacies in the investigation and the weak foundation of the indictment. The realisation at such a late stage that a person had been wrongfully accused epitomised systemic flaws in the prosecution’s approach.
The problems extended beyond investigative shortcomings. The indictment against another individual, identified as Accused Number 7, Milan Mihajlovic, was inexplicably delayed by almost five years despite the completion of investigations. Such delays not only undermine the credibility of the judicial process but also erode public trust in the system’s ability to deliver timely justice.
Pattern of escapes reveals systemic weaknesses
A troubling pattern of escapes also emerged, reflecting systemic weaknesses in Kosovo’s institutional chain. The escape of Marko Rosic, who fled immediately after being sentenced to ten years in prison, starkly illustrated the ineffective coordination between police and judiciary.
Ensuring the presence of defendants at trial and the enforcement of court decisions remains an area of grave concern. The procedural lapse in Rosic’s case, where the police failed to detain him post-sentencing, tarnished the reputation of Kosovo’s security and justice institutions.
The failures highlighted by the Ivanovic case, along with other notable cases, like the Enver Sekiraqa case and the escape of Xhabir Zharku, illustrate that the roots of these issues lie in legal ambiguities and deficiencies. These cases, exemplifying systemic weaknesses and gaps within Kosovo’s judicial system, necessitate immediate and comprehensive reform.
On May 17, the Court of Appeals ordered the detention of Enver Sekiraqa, who had been sentenced to 25 years in prison by the Prishtina Basic Court for inciting the murder of policeman Triumf Riza in 2007.
Despite this, the police were unable to detain Sekiraqa because the presiding judge had inexplicably removed the security measure against him, deeming that there was no credible reason for his house arrest or detention. The Judicial Council initiated disciplinary procedures by suspending the judge, yet no concrete action or disciplinary decision has been made public. This lack of accountability further erodes trust in the justice system.
In the case of Xhabir Zharku, the judicial system’s shortcomings were even more pronounced. Zharku, sentenced in a summary judgment for a criminal offence, fled to Sweden and avoided returning to Kosovo until the statute of limitations for his sentence had expired.
This escape underscores the failure of Kosovo institutions to secure international legal cooperation, which remains a significant issue, particularly with countries like Serbia. The lack of such cooperation has historically allowed individuals to evade justice, undermining the credibility and efficacy of Kosovo’s judicial processes.
The Ivanovic, Sekiraqa, and Zharku cases are all stark reminders of the systemic flaws within Kosovo’s justice system. Addressing these issues requires not only procedural changes but a cultural shift within the institutions of justice.
There must be a commitment to upholding the rule of law, to ensuring accountability and fostering international cooperation to prevent future miscarriages of justice. Only through such concerted efforts can Kosovo hope to restore faith in its justice system and deliver true justice for its citizens.
Contributing to these escapes is a significant gap in Kosovo’s Criminal Procedure Code. The current code lacks a mandatory provision requiring the presence of parties during the announcement of a judicial decision. This loophole allows convicted individuals to evade capture and punishment.
Additionally, the new code does not mandate immediate detention for individuals sentenced to more than five years, a provision that was inexplicably removed in recent amendments made by the Ministry of Justice. Previously, such a mandate ensured that individuals sentenced to significant prison terms were detained immediately, preventing any chance of escape.
These deficiencies demand rectification. The Criminal Procedure Code must be amended to include the mandatory presence of the accused during verdict announcements and to enforce immediate detention for sentences exceeding five years. Such changes would remove discretionary power from judges in these critical moments, ensuring that convicted individuals are promptly detained.
Urgent reforms needed
To restore faith in Kosovo’s justice system and to prevent future miscarriages of justice, comprehensive legal reforms are needed. Strengthening procedural mandates and closing existing loopholes will be crucial steps towards achieving a more efficient and reliable judicial system.
In the Ivanovic case, it is evident that the justice system’s shortcomings began with the investigation. The failure to properly identify and indict the main perpetrators reflects a lack of thoroughness and competence within the Special Prosecutor’s Office. This initial misstep set the tone for a flawed judicial process that ultimately failed to deliver justice.
Moreover, procedural delays caused by administrative inefficiencies highlight a broader issue. Repeated postponements due to improperly sent court summons and incomplete documentation suggest a lack of coordination and accountability. Such inefficiencies not only prolong the judicial process but also undermine confidence in the fairness and efficacy of the system.
These systemic problems are compounded by the inability of the police and the justice system to ensure the presence of defendants and the enforcement of court decisions. The escape of convicts like Rosic and others exemplifies a serious gap in the execution of justice. This recurring issue points to a fundamental weakness in the cooperation between different branches of the justice system, raising questions about the effectiveness of current policies and practices.
Addressing these issues requires more than procedural changes; it demands a cultural shift within the institutions of justice. There must be a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done. This involves improving the training and resources available to prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers to enhance their ability to carry out their duties effectively.
The legal framework itself needs to be strengthened. Gaps in the Criminal Procedure Code, such as the lack of mandatory presence during verdict announcements and the removal of immediate detention provisions, must be addressed. These reforms would provide clear guidelines and reduce the discretionary power that has often led to inconsistent and inadequate enforcement of justice.
The lessons from the Ivanovic case, along with other high-profile cases, should serve as a wake-up call for Kosovo’s justice system. It is essential to recognise that justice delayed is justice denied. The inefficiencies and inadequacies within the system not only fail the victims and their families but erode public trust and confidence in the rule of law.
In conclusion, the case highlights the urgent need for comprehensive reforms. Strengthening the legal framework, improving institutional coordination, and ensuring accountability at all levels are critical steps towards restoring faith in the justice system. Only through such concerted efforts can Kosovo hope to deliver true justice.
