SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE СУД БОСНЕ И ХЕРЦЕГОВИНЕ Number: X-K-07/477 Sarajevo, 12 May 2009

IN THE NAME OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Panel comprised of the Judge Vesna Jesenković as the President of the Panel and Judges Hasija Mašović and Fikret Kršlaković as the Panel members, in the criminal case against the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak for the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: CC BiH) in conjunction with the criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC FBiH), committed in concurrence, deciding upon the Indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Special Department for Organized Crime, Economic Crimes and Corruption, no. KT-492/07 of 28 April 2008, following the main, public and oral trial, in the presence of the Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, Jasmina Gafić, the accused Suad Glavinić and his defense counsel, attorney Senad Kreho from Sarajevo, and the accused Saudin Duvnjak and his defense counsel, attorney Almin Dautbegović from Zenica, on 12 May 2009 rendered and publicly announced the following

VERDICT The Accused 1. SUAD GLAVINIĆ a.k.a. Sudo, son of Alija and Zahida nee. Alijagić, born on 15 June

1957 in Sarajevo, holding permanent residence in Vogošća, at Jošanička 68, married, father of a minor, a counter-sabotage operator by profession, employed at the Sarajevo International Airport, Bosniak by ethnicity, citizen of BiH, personal ID number 1506957174358, previously convicted by the Municipal Court I in Sarajevo, number K-56/78 of 9 January 1979 for the criminal offense under Article 147(1) of the CC of the Socialist Republic of BiH to 8 months of imprisonment, 3 years suspended;

2. SAUDIN DUVNJAK a.k.a. Sudo, son of Abdulah and Fikreta nee Helvida, born on 7

November 1980 in Zenica, residing at Hadžije Mazića Put 127, Zenica, baker by profession, secondary school qualifications, unemployed, single, Bosniak by ethnicity, citizen of BiH, personal ID number 0711980190009, criminal proceedings before another court pending against him;

Pursuant to Article 284(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH

ARE ACQUITTED Of the following: As members of a criminal organization, on 5 December 2007 at around 14:50 hours, at the Sarajevo International Airport they misappropriated valuable shipment of money in the amount of EUR 1,315,755.46 (approximately KM 2.5 million), Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak, following a previous plan and agreement with the individuals known to them, whereas the group consisted of at least four more members, all together planned in detail

Kraljice Jelene br. 88, 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosna i Hercegovina, Tel: 033 707 100, Faks: 033 707 225 Краљице Јелене бр. 88, 71 000 Сарајево, Босна и Херцеговина, Тел: 033 707 100, Факс: 033 707 225

how to rob the monetary shipment, and then prepared and developed in detail the role of each member of the criminal group with specified actions each of them was supposed to carry out at a given moment, whereby Saudin Duvnjak obtained and then handed over to other accomplices a passenger motor vehicle Audi Q7 used in the execution of the robbery, which, according to its driving and visual characteristics is similar to those used by members of SIPA special units, whereas he had obtained the vehicle unlawfully several months prior to that, in that on 26 June 2007, in the evening hours, at around 23:00 hours, at Plandište, the Ilidža municipality, at a local road Ilidža-Blažuj in the vicinity of Proming petrol station, together with two other unknown persons, at the moment when citizen Jasmin Bahto stopped his vehicle Audi Q7 and stepped out to relieve himself, Saudin Duvnjak together with two other unknown persons stopped his vehicle behind the idling vehicle of Jasmin Bahto, got out of the vehicle, approached him, while the other unknown person pointed a pistol at Jasmin Bahto, kicked him in the region of his right groin telling him: “get lost from the vehicle”, whereupon all three men sat in his car, started the engine using the keys that were in the lock, drove away in an unknown direction, whereupon Saudin Duvnjak held the vehicle misappropriated in this way in hiding until 5 December 2007, when he handed over the vehicle to other members of the criminal organization, who, on the above-mentioned date, at 14:50 hours, with the assistance of Suad Glavinić, an employee of the Sarajevo International Airport, using his position of the employee of the Cargo Centre, being familiar with the time, manner of arrival of the shipment, manner of its securing, the layout of the premises and the persons involved in the procedure with valuable shipments, while carrying out his duty, having taken over and placed the valuable shipment of the ABS Bank Sarajevo, consisting of 3 bags of money weighing 44 kg in total, the value of which exceeded KM 2.5 million, contrary to the usual procedure in practice, left the padlock at the door to the room where the shipment was placed unlocked, and put a security tape on the padlock, so that everything would appear regular and sealed, while in fact he left the padlock at the door to the room in the Cargo Centre unlocked, and after a short period of time, arriving at high speed in the Audi Q7 (previously misappropriated by Duvnjak in June 2007 in the above described manner), other members of this criminal organization, in other words, four camouflaged persons, drove into the area, got out of the vehicle, making a lot of noise and clamor, feigning they were members of the SIPA Special Department, which the employees of the Cargo Centre initially believed, whereupon one of the attackers took the position of a guard and pointing a weapon – long-barreled, made all the present enter a room to be able to better supervise, while one of the three remaining criminals slightly moved his hand as if unlocking the padlock, took off the security tape covering the padlock, put the padlock into his pocket, and then simply opened the door to the room where money was placed, entered together with the two remaining criminals into this special room where the valuable shipment (the so-called VAL shipment) was placed, secured by two employees of the BiH Border Police, Nevenko Samardžija and Nedeljko Cicović, and continued to make noise as if searching and locating narcotic drugs at the Airport, they ordered that the director come immediately in order to help them remove the plastic tarpaulin from the trolley in which the money was placed, while one of them pointed his weapon at the employees of the Border Police and ordered them to lie down, seized a pistol from the armed police officer Nevenko Samardžija, and when director Nijaz Zuban arrived, he had to remove the tarpaulin from the trolley together with the Cargo Centre employee, Mirsad Halilović, who was there, threatened by the attacker, and then all three criminals took 3 bags of money in different currencies and denominations, as follows: AUD 37,675.00, CAD 30,205.00, GBP 10,135.00, NOK 224,150.00, SEK 1,079,480.00, DKK 386,150.00, CHF

2

417,130.00, EUR 765.100, USD 39,696.00 and RSD 1,617,580.00, totaling EUR 1,315,755.46, thus misappropriating the entire valuable shipment, which was prepared for transport by air from the ABS Bank d.d. Sarajevo to the Credit Suisse Zurich Bank in Switzerland, damaging in that way the ABS Bank for the mentioned amount. Whereby they would commit the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH in conjunction with the criminal offences of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) of the CC F BiH, committed in concurrence. Pursuant to Article 198(3) of the CPC BiH, the aggrieved party, Jasmin Bahto, is hereby referred to pursue his claim under property law in a civil action. Pursuant to Article 189(1) of the CPC BiH, the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak shall be relieved from payment for the costs of the criminal proceedings, which shall be paid from budget appropriations.

Reasoning 1. Charges In the Indictment no. KT-492/07 of 28 April 2008, confirmed by the Court of BiH on 6 May 2008, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH charged Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak with having committed the criminal offense of organized crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH in conjunction with the criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) of the CC FBiH, committed in concurrence. At the plea hearing held on 23 May 2008, the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak entered the plea of not guilty for the criminal offenses charged against them by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, and the case was referred to the Trial Panel to schedule the main trial. In the course of the main trial, as two judges passed away, there was a change in the Trial Panel composition in the case, and, pursuant to Article 251(3) of the CPC BiH, with the consent of the parties and the defense attorneys, decision was made not to repeat the presentation of the evidence already presented in the proceedings, but rather the President and the new Panel member would use the audio and video CD recordings of the main trial to familiarize themselves with the testimonies of the witnesses who had already appeared before the Court, that is, that they would read and examine the documentary evidence already presented, after which the evidentiary proceedings was resumed. 2. Evidentiary Proceedings a) Prosecution Case At the main trial, the Prosecutor’s Office directly examined the following witnesses: Vahidin Šahinpašić, Fadil Zolota, Igor Kujača, Slađenka Čerkez, Sulejman Iković, Todor Bošković, Elvir Mraković, Admir Šalaka, Kenan Kapo, Lutvija Omerspahić, Fahrudin

3

Bečirević, Fakir Arnaut, Milivoj Marković, Saudin Selimović, Armin Zulkić, Amela Kolar, Vahid Agić, Nevenko Samardžija, Nedeljko Cicović, Admir Hodžić, Elvir Okanović, Emina Vukičević, Enes Pašić, Nijaz Zuban, Mirsad Halilović, Mensur Bašić, Darijan Veličan, Mirhat Rajkić, Armin Ičindić, Vojislav Dolić, Nikolina Bušić, Sanin Kapić, Midhat Ovčina, Senad Granilo, Edin Šaljić, Ivan Veličan, Jasmin Bahto, Alan Bajić, Mustafa Deveđija, Ibrahim Topčić, Marko Bilić, Olga Vukša, Sead Bešić, Rajko Čekić, Radislav Jovičić and Mensur Šipka. Furthermore, the Prosecution examined the expert witnesses Muris Dizdar, Gordana Radović-Rajević and Hilmija Mašović, and upon the presentation of their expert opinions at the main trial, the following findings and opinions were tendered as prosecution evidence: the finding and opinion by a court appointed expert in fire protection, BSc in Architecture, Muris Dizdar, no. 03-04-272/02 of 15 April 2003, attached to which was the photo-documentation provided by the expert witness; the finding and opinion by an expert in chemical testing, BSc in Chemistry, Gordana Radović-Rajević, no. 09-14/1-1-04-5-6760 of 20 December 2007; and the finding and opinion of an expert in chemical analysis, BSc in Chemistry, Hilmija Mašović, no. 09-14/1-1-04-5-6760 of 27 December 2007, attached to which was the photo-documentation of the expert evaluation on the chassis number of the vehicle of the make Audi Q7 no. 09-14/1-04-5-6760 of 27 December 2007, which was processed by an expert in forensic photography and video devices, Edin Kundalić. The following documentary evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH were presented before the Court: two Maps showing the airport settlement, Photo-documentation of the Cargo Area of the Sarajevo International Airport (MAS) no. 17-14/1-7-36/07 of 10 December 2007, Record of On-site Investigation by the Sarajevo Canton Ministry of Interior /MUP KS/, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-113/07 of 5 December 2007, Report of Crime Scene Investigation by the Sarajevo Canton MoI no. K.U.3198/07 of 5 December 2007, Photo-documentation of MAS by the Sarajevo Canton MoI no. K.U.3198/07 of 5 December 2007, Video recording by the security cameras at the MAS Cargo Center of 14 December 2007, Video recording by the security cameras at the MAS Cargo Center of 5 December 2007 (starting at 14:18 hrs on), CD and photographs from the MAS Cargo Center, Video recording by the security cameras at the MAS Cargo Center of 5 December 2007 (from 14:45 to 15:00 hrs), Scheme of the matrix of incoming calls to the phone number 061/186-544, Scheme of the matrix of outgoing calls for the number 061/186-544, SIPA Official Note on intelligence gathered on the individual Suad Glavinić no. 17-02/3-04-1-38/07 Sl. of 9 December 2007, Official Note by SIPA no. 17-02/7-04-1-sl/07 of 3 July 2007, with two photographs attached, Record on Item Identification by SIPA, Crime Investigation Department, no. 17-02/3-383/06-1/07 of 10 December 2007, Photo-documentation on passenger motor vehicle - Audi Q7 by SIPA no. 17-14/1-7-37/07 of 10 December 2007, Record on Person/Item Identification by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-82/08 of 1 March 2008, Official Note by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector no. 02/2-2-688 of 5 December 2007, Official Note by SIPA no. 17-02/3-04-1-383/06-sl/07 of 10 December 2007, Official Report by SIPA no. 17-02/3-383/06-sl/08 of 11 February 2008, attached to which is a CD with audio recordings of the communication via USW connection taking place among the MAS officials, Official Note by SIPA no. 17-02/3-146/06 of 8 December 2007, Official Note by the Sarajevo Canton MUP, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-723/07 of 27 December 2007, Official Note by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-686707 of 6 December 2007, one

4

CD with photographs from the cameras at the MAS Cargo Center, photographs of passenger motor vehicle Audi Q7, Receipt on Temporary Seizure of Objects by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-104/07 of 5 December 2007, Analysis of the documentation received from ABS Banka d.d. Sarajevo and the statements of their employees taken by SIPA, Crime Investigation Department no. 17-02/3-04-1-383/06 of 21 December 2007, Correspondence by the ABS Bank no. 7562-02-01/07 of 14 December 2007, Official Report by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-KU:4946/07 of 4 July 2007, Official Report by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-319/07 of 27 June 2007, Official Report by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-685/07 of 6 December 2007, Record of Oral Criminal Report Received by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, 4th Police Department, dated 26 June 2007, List of documentation by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Department, submitted to SIPA, no. 08-03/2-1-04-2-87272007-SD of 11 December 2007, Notice by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Department, no. 08-03/2-1-6767/2007-IV of 3 December 2007, List of police officers, Support Unit, Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Department, no. 08-03/2-1-04-2-872-1/2007-SD of 11 December 2007, Authorization by the ASB Bank no. 7622-02-08-08 of 26 September 2008, Transport Announcement by ABS Banka DD Sarajevo, Treasury Division, no. 7357-02-05-07 of 4 December 2007, Transport Announcement by ABS Banka DD Sarajevo, Treasury Division, no. 7307-02-05-07 of 3 December 2007, Shipment Announcement by the ABS Bank no. S-71/07 of 5 December 2007, Form O1- Statement of the Party (a form accompanying the shipment), Itemized List of Currencies and Amounts by the ABS Bank no. S-71/07 of 5 December 2007, ABS Bank Order to Dispatch Money no. S-71/07 of 5 December 2007, Bill of Lading by the ABS Bank, Order Form by the ABS Bank no. 140/07 of 5 December 2007, Request by ABS Banka DD Sarajevo, Security Department, for police escort for the money transport no. 7300-02-13-07 of 3 December 2007, Request by ABS Banka DD Sarajevo, Security Department, for police escort for the money transport no. 7354-02-13-07 of 4 December 2007, Authorization by the ABS Bank no. 8932-02-08-08 of 10 November 2008, SIPA Witness Examination Record - Mirhat Rajkić, no. 17-02/3-32/08 of 28 April 2008, SIPA Witness Examination Record - Armin Ičindić, no. 17-02/3-64/07 of 8 December 2007, Witness Examination Record by the Sarajevo Canton MUP, Crime Police Sector, for Mensur Bašić, no. 0272-0-281/07 of 6 December 2007, Witness Examination Record by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, for Darijan Veličan, no. 02/2-2-285/07 of 6 December 2007, SIPA Witness Examination Record – Darijan Veličan, no. 17-02/3-66/07 of 14 December 2007, SIPA Witness Examination Record – Darijan Veličan, no. 17-02/3-3/08 of 15 January 2008, MAS Operational Instructions on Counter-Sabotage Search of Goods, Mail and VAL Shipments at the Cargo Center as of January 2006, Witness Examination Record by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, for Midhat Ovčina, no. 02/2-2-277 of 06 December 2007, Findings by the Urgent Medical Center of the Clinical Center of the Sarajevo University for the person Edin Šaljić, no. 29809 of 5 December 2007, SIPA Witness Examination Record – Ivan Veličan, no. 17-02/3-1/078 of 8 January 2008, Delivery of the Notice by MAS that Alan Bajić may disclose an official secret, no. 01-6-02-2-5616/3 of 5 December 2008, SIPA Witness Examination Record - Alan Bajić, no. 17-02/3-31/08 of 28 April 2008, SIPA Witness Examination Record - Mustafa Devedžija, no. 17-02/3-30/08 of 28 April 2008, Request by Mustafa Devedžija to be issued a receipt for the missing table plates of 27 June 2007, Record of Inspection by the Sarajevo Canton MoI no. 02/2-2-114/07 of 6 December 2007, Report of Crime Scene Investigation by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 3206/07 of 10

5

December 2007, Photo-documentation of the vehicle search by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 3206/07 of 6 December 2007, SIPA Report on Forensic Inspection of a passenger motor vehicle, no. 17-02/8-04-1-int/07 of 9 January 2008, SIPA Photo-documentation on forensic inspection of a passenger motor vehicle of 26 December 2007, Information by Radislav Jovičić, Deputy Commander of Special Support Unit, on demonstration exercises conducted for 5 December 2007 of 14 January 2008, Request for Record Delivery by the ABS Bank, no. 7575-02-08-07 of 13 December 2007, Official Note by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, 3rd Police Department, no. 02/3-3-3-sl/07 of 27 June 2007, Submission by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, 3rd Police Department, no. 02/3-3-3-2403/07 of 27 June 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, 3rd Police Department, no. 0273-3-3-040-665/07 of 28 June 2007, Decision by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI to revoke the classification of “strictly confidential” no. 08-01/1-04-2-5554-2/08 of 20 October 2008, Instruction by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI on Escorting and Securing Money Shipments during their Transport through the Territory of Zenica-Doboj Canton no. 10-01/1-04-280/99 of November 1999, Submission by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Administration, no. 08-03/2-1-6767/2007-IV of 3 December 2007, Submission by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Administration, no. 08-03/2-1-6791/2007-IV of 4 December 2007, Patrol Order by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Uniformed Police Sector, Support Unit, of 5 December 2007, Decision by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Administration, to revoke the classification of “strictly confidential” no. 08-03/4-04-2-5554-4/08 of 6 November 2008, Delivery by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, 3rd Police Department, no. 02/3-3-2-040-203/09 of 26 January 2009, Decision by the Zenica-Doboj Canton MoI, Zenica Police Administration, to revoke the classification of “strictly confidential” no. 08-03/4-04-2-5554-2/08 of 20 October 2008, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Džemal Hodžić no. 02/2-2-83/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Samir Musić no. 02/2-2-84/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Emin Vukičević no. 02/2-2-85/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Edin Šaljić no. 02/2-2-86/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Nedeljko Cicović no. 02/2-2-87/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Emir Pilav no. 02/2-2-88/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Nijaz Zuban no. 02/2-2-89/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Darijan Veličan no. 02/2-2-90/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Senad Granilo no. 02/2-2-91/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Mensur Bašić no. 02/2-2-92/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Adis Katica no. 02/2-2-93/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Nermin Keč no. 02/2-2-94/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Amer Mezit no. 02/2-2-95/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Armin Ičindić no. 02/2-2-96/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily

6

Seized Objects from Midhat Ovčina no. 02/2-2-97/07 of 6 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Rusmir Beganović no. 02/2-2-98/07 of 6 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Damir Lazičić no. 02/2-2-99/07 of 6 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Enes Pašić no. 02/2-2-100/07 of 6 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Mirsad Halilović no. 02/2-2-101/07 of 6 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Administration, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Saudin Selimović no. 02/3-4-3-181/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Ljubomir Kelkava no. 02/3-4-3-174/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Maja Trišić no. 02/3-4-3-175/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Željko Daničić no. 02/3-4-3-176/07 of 05 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Administration, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Amir Mulić no. 02/3-4-3-177/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Ivan Čurčić no. 02/3-4-3-178/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Fakir Arnaut no. 02/3-4-3-179/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Ilidža Police Department, on Temporarily Seized Objects from Amir Rihić no. 02/3-4-3-180/07 of 5 December 2007, Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Amer Mezit of 15 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Emina Vukičević of 15 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Nijaz Zuban, of 15 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Midhat Ovčina, of 18 February 2007; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Damir Lazić, of 7 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Mensur Bašić, of 6 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Samir Musić, of 5 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Adis Katica, of 1 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Mirsad Halilović, of 30 January 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Enes Pašić, of 30 January 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Edin Šaljić, of 14 January 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Senad Granilo, of 14 January 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Džemal Hodžić, of 15 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Nermin Keč, of 15 February 2008; Receipt by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on return of a mobile phone to Darijan Veličan, of 17 January 2008; SIPA Submission on revoking the marking of “strictly confidential” no. 17-02/3-04-1-383/06 of 22 December 2008; Copy of the Criminal and Operative Record of the Sarajevo Canton MoI for Suad Glavinić no. 02/2-2-3-G/08 of 10 January 2008; Employment Contract concluded on 1 July 2005 between MAS and Suad Glavinić, no. 01-3513; MAS Supervisory Board Decision Adopting the Rulebook on MAS Operations no. 01-1870 of 4 April 2005; Rulebook on MAS Operations of April 2005 with attachments; MAS Personnel Records for the dates of 28 June and 29

7

June 2006, and 4 December and 5 December 2007; Report by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on conducted examination and analysis of the delivered contents of the recordings of video surveillance by the security cameras set up at the MAS Cargo Center for the day of 4 December 2007 and 5 December 2007, of 15 January 2009; Report by FMUP, FBiH Police Administration, on conducted examination and analysis of the delivered contents no. 09-018 of 16 January 2009; Order by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH to carry out expert evaluation of the video surveillance no. KT-492/07 of 19 November 2008. The Court accepted the Prosecution Motion to Supplement Evidentiary Proceedings by hearing the witnesses – Aleksandra Mizdrak, Mirjana Dizdar and Elmedin Kobiljak, and tendering as evidence of the document by J.P.MAS no. 02-1-02-2-2246/1 of 13 May 2008, with accompanying documents: Employment Contract for Unspecified Period of Time, concluded between Suad Glavinić and MAS of 1 July 2005; MAS Rulebook on Operations and Job Systematization, with relevant pages 49 and 50, of 4 April 2005; MAS Employees List, Attendance Sheet for 28 and 29 June 2006 and for 4 and 5 December 2009; FMUP Report on conducted examination and analysis of the submitted contents of the recordings by video surveillance by the security cameras set up at the MAS Cargo Center for the day of 4 December 2007 and 5 December 2007 upon the Order by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, Sarajevo, no. KT-492/07 of 28 April 2008, made on 15 January 2009; FMUP Report on conducted examination and analysis of the submitted contents no. 09-018 of 16 January 2009; Order by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH to carry out expert evaluation of the video surveillance, to the Operations/Communications Center of FBiH Police Administration, IT Sector, Elmedin Kobiljak, of 19 November 2008; Report by BH Telecom d.d. Sarajevo no. 07.4.-9.24-1092/1-07 of 27 June 2008; and Notice by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Zenica-Doboj Canton no. KT-263/07 of 23 May 2008. During the evidentiary proceedings the Prosecution abandoned the presentation of evidence by hearing the following witnesses: Pero Božović, Amer Mezit, Adis Katica, Samir Musić, Damir Lazić, Džemal Hodžić, Rusmir Beganović, Emir Pilav, Amir Mulić, Željko Daničić, Ljubomir Kelava, Ivan Čurčić, Amir Rihić, Maja Trišić, Josip Vidović, Hadis Muharemović, Sakib Karavelić, Bruno Međedović, Bojan Knežević, Ana Pavlović, Munir Alispahić, Dževad Sejdić, Nedžmina Sirćo, Emina Ćorić, Adnan Zukić, Milan Malović, Aleksandar Vujadin, Darko Hasagić and Emir Viteškić, as well as the expert witnesses Elmir Karahasanović and Rijad Konjhodžić. b) Defense Case The defense for the first accused, Suad Glavinić, did not propose any witnesses to be heard, while the following documentary evidence were tendered as evidence of the defense for the first accused: Correspondence by MAS no. 01-6-02-1-5616/7 of 27 November 2008, attached to which were the documents requested by the above correspondence, as follows: Excerpt from the MAS Rulebook on Operations; Job Systematization – terms of reference for a counter-sabotage controller; MAS Report on armed robbery on 5 December 2007 of 11 December 2007; and MAS Draft Note no. 04-2-02-2-5482 of 10 December 2007. In the course of the evidentiary proceedings, the defense for the second accused, Saudin Duvnjak, heard the following witnesses: Mehmed Skomorac, Derviš Đerahović, Safet Brković, Neven Pecirep, Danijel Filipović, Fahrudin Karaman and Sejo Kurtović and the

8

following documentary evidence were tendered into the case file as evidence for the defense of the accused, Saudin Duvnjak: Work Attendance Sheet for the period of January – December 2007, pertaining to work attendance by the accused, Saudin Duvnjak; and Record on Identification of Persons/Items, by the Sarajevo Canton MoI, Crime Police Sector, no. 02/2-2-82/08 of 1 March 2008. 3. Procedural Decisions a) Non-acceptance of Certain Prosecution Evidence as Additional Evidence At the main trial hearing held on 21 April 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH proposed the presentation of additional evidence by having a repeated expert evaluation –analysis of the disputable recording- done by the Technology University in Vienna, Austria, by analyzing the recording of the video surveillance for the time between 2:50:58:76 and 2:51:11:15 and trying to establish whether the masked individual on the recording is holding anything in the right hand or grabbing an item from a pocket by his right hand. The defense for the first and second accused objected to the presentation of this evidence, submitting its only purpose would be to stall the proceedings, without any contribution to casting some light onto the issues relevant for the proceedings, maintaining the Prosecution has had more than enough time in the course of the investigation and during the regular evidentiary proceedings to present this exhibit, had they deemed it relevant. The Court refused the Prosecution Motion to present additional evidence, as the presentation of this evidence would not have an impact on the rendering of a complete and rightful decision on the criminal offenses charged, rendering its presentation futile. In rendering this decision, the Court started from the question of which decisive facts need to be established in the case and concluded that at the hearing of 14 April 2009, the Court already upheld the Prosecution motion and accepted to hear, as an additional evidence, a professional, Elmedin Kobiljak, who testified on the circumstances which would be subject of the new expert evaluation in Vienna; he said one can notice on the masked individual on the recording, which was subject of expert evaluation, a change in the color shade in the area of the right hand thumb, but given the bad quality of the recording, one cannot say with certainty whether the masked individual is holding an object or not, which is noted in the Report by FMUP, Operations/Communications Center of 15 January 2009, made on the conducted examination and analysis of the contents of the recordings of video surveillance by the security cameras set up at the MAS Cargo Center, with a detailed analysis and professional opinion. Therefore, the Prosecution presented evidence to this light only seven days before this motion (also as part of additional evidence) and repeating the presentation of evidence on the same circumstances has no relevance to the case, because, regardless of the result of the expert evaluation, it would not give an answer to the question whether the accused Suad Glavinić locked the padlock at the door of the export area of the Cargo Center, that is, whether he committed the criminal offense charged against him. Namely, the fact whether the masked individual on the recording is holding an object in his right hand or not in itself does not answer the question.

9

Bearing in mind that the task of the Court, within the meaning of Article 13 of the CPC BiH, is to ensure the conduct of the criminal proceedings without undue delay, that is, the conduct of the criminal proceedings in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and in view of Article 263(2) of the CPC BiH, prescribing that “if the judge or the presiding judge finds that the circumstances that a party and the defense attorney wish to prove are irrelevant to the case or that the presented evidence is unnecessary, the judge or the presiding judge shall reject the presentation of such evidence”, the Panel rendered the decision refusing the motion to present this additional evidence, finding that the presentation of this evidence would only cause undue delay in the proceedings, without contributing to the clarification of any matter and it is of no influence to the rendering of a complete and rightful decision by the Court on the criminal offense charged under the Indictment. Furthermore, in the regular Prosecution case, the Court did not accept to hear the Prosecution expert witness, Ismet Katana, an employee in the Forensics Department of FMUP, whose hearing was proposed in the Indictment, who carried out the polygraph testing of a number of individuals who could have had an active part in the commission of this criminal offense, which would be the subject of his testimony. Namely, polygraph testing cannot be used as evidence on which the court would base its decision, that is, it is not relevant to this stage of the criminal proceedings, but rather it can be used in the investigation stage, while the police are engaged in operational activities; it is for this reason that the proposal to hear this witness was not accepted. 4. Closing Arguments a) Prosecution Following the completion of the evidentiary proceedings, the closing arguments were presented by the Prosecution and by the defense for the accused. In their closing arguments, the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH submitted they managed to prove that the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak, as members of an organized criminal group, by taking premeditated actions agreed in advance, together with other group members, took part in preparing and carrying out of the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH in conjunction with the criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) of the CC FBiH, committed in concurrence. In this light, the Prosecution submitted it was undisputedly established that the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak arranged in advance with the persons known to them (at least four other individuals) to carry out the money robbery at the Cargo Center of the Sarajevo International Airport, given they knew that airport was often used for sending money shipments – the so-called VAL shipments - from the banks in the territory of BiH to other European countries. According to the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, Suad Glavinić, as a MAS employee, knew of the money shipments by very nature of his duties, thus, using his position of a Cargo Center employee, being familiar with the time, manner of arrival of the shipment, manner of its securing, the layout of the premises and the persons involved in the procedure with valuable shipments, while carrying out his duty, having taken over and placed the valuable shipment of the ABS Bank Sarajevo, consisting of 3 bags of money weighing 44 kg, the value of which exceeded KM 2,500,000.00, contrary to the usual procedure in practice, left the padlock on the door to the room where the shipment was

10

placed unlocked, and put a security tape on the padlock, so that everything would appear regular and sealed. Furthermore, the Prosecution submits Suad Glavinić must have known that on the day of 4 December 2007 the ABS Bank had announced a shipment of about KM 6,000,000.00, which was postponed for the day after, due to weather conditions, and, by making a phone call at 14:33.50 on 4 December 2007 he alerted his accomplices that the robbery they had planned was postponed and then, on 5 December 2007, he tipped his accomplices by phone at 14:31:17, giving them the green light for the robbery, which was then carried out. The above said, the Prosecution submitted, is corroborated by numerous documentary exhibits tendered, video recordings shown at the main trial and testimonies by great many witnesses. The Prosecution further argued that witness testimonies proved the status of the accused Suad Glavinić as a Counter-Sabotage Protection operator at the time of the commission of the criminal offense and that he had performed this duty for a number of years. Furthermore, according to the Prosecutor’s Office, the witnesses confirmed that the accused used the phone number 061/186-544, which was also confirmed in the Report by BH Telecom of 27 June 2008. The Prosecution further submitted that the witnesses- Sarajevo MAS employees, saw, one way or the other, the commission of the criminal offense, the arrival of the vehicle Audi Q7 with masked individuals and the entire sequence of events and actions taken by the perpetrators of the criminal offense, based on which the Prosecution can undoubtedly conclude how the incident happened. The Prosecution also pointed in their closing arguments to the video recordings of the security cameras, marked with letters C, D, H and I, of 5 December 2007, whose examination reveals and proves beyond any doubt the time of the commission of the criminal offense; it was also established that on 4 December 2007 Suad Glavinić talked over his mobile phone at 14:32 hrs, and on 5 December 2007 at 14:31 hrs. The Prosecution argued that this is also confirmed by objective evidence, that is, the matrices of incoming and outgoing calls for the number 061/186-544, used by Suad Glavinić, because a scheme was made from the BH Telecom listing, showing that the accused did not have any incoming or outgoing calls at the above time, which was confirmed by the testimony of SIPA analyst, Mensur Šipkar, who made it clear that the accused had not used another SIM card in his mobile phone. This, according to the Prosecution, was also confirmed by the witness Elvir Mraković. Based on the submissions made, the Prosecution concluded that during the relevant time the accused Suad Glavinić was using, or better to say, had two mobile phones, of which one was used only for the commission of this criminal offense. Further, the Prosecution ascertained that the accused got rid of both mobile phones in an undetermined manner and that this is all further confirmed by the conduct of the accused, who left the scene and headed home after the commission of the criminal offense, as well as the fact that even later, on the premises of the Sarajevo Canton MoI, he did not surrender his mobile phone and that the next day, after being summoned by a SIPA inspector, he said he had lost it. Furthermore, as for the part pertaining to the unlocking of the padlock by the perpetrator-masked individual, the Prosecution argued that the swiftness of the gesture of unlocking the padlock, the fact that the perpetrator wore gloves and that he did not use any force or effort to break the padlock indicate that the padlock had been unlocked. This is further corroborated by the conduct of the perpetrator, who was showing off in front of the cameras, taking the keys out of the pocket, in order to cover for the accessory, Suad Glavinić, although the image (Exhibit T-7) clearly shows that the perpetrator did not have a key in his hand. Finally, the Prosecutor’s Office argued that the accused had previous convictions for the crimes against property, thefts, aggravated thefts, and reiterated that in the course of the main trial it was

11

undisputedly established that the accused Suad Glavinić was partaking in the commission of this criminal offense and that he had a clearly defined role in this organized criminal group. As for the responsibility and active involvement of Saudin Duvnjak in the commission of the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of CC BiH in conjunction with the criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic under Article 198(2) of CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) the CC FBiH, the Prosecution submitted in their closing arguments that in the course of the main trial it was undisputedly established that the accused Duvnjak committed the criminal offenses charged against him. According to the Prosecution, this is confirmed by original documents and the case file of the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor’s Office no. KTN-7292/07, which was opened upon the Report by the 4th Ilidža PD, which was based on the original documents made at the time of the commission of the criminal offense. The Prosecution further submitted that the aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto reported the crime almost six months prior to the commission of the criminal offense of aggravated robbery at MAS, which is why the testimony of this witness is not disputed, as at the time of giving his original statement he did not know who the perpetrator was. The Prosecution also submitted that the chronology of the events is in order, that is, the aggravated robbery-misappropriation of the vehicle Audi Q7 was carried out on 26 June 2007, the aggrieved party reported the crime to the 4th Ilidža PD on the same evening, gave a witness statement on 27 June 2007, then, at the funeral/Muslim burial held on 30 June 2007 the aggrieved party tracked down and recognized the perpetrator of the crime and, subsequently, on 03 July 2007, the aggrieved party surrendered the photographs taken to the SIPA inspectors and described the incident in identical manner. The Prosecution also submitted that it ensues from the Record of Identification of Persons no. 02/2-2-sl/08 of 1 March 2008 that the aggrieved party, Jasmin Bahto, identified the person – the perpetrator of the crime, recognizing from among five individuals the person who was the 3rd in the line-up as the perpetrator of the crime committed against him on 26 June 2007, submitting with 100% certainty that the accused Saudin Duvnjak was the perpetrator of the crime. In conclusion of their closing arguments, the Prosecution submitted they believed there was sufficient evidence corroborating the grounded suspicion that the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak committed the criminal offense of organized crime and moved the Trial Panel to find them guilty and to pronounce the sentence against them commensurate to the gravity of the above criminal offense. b) Defense for the Accused Suad Glavinić The defense counsel for the accused Suad Glavinić, attorney Senad Kreho, submitted in his closing arguments that the Prosecution failed to prove the factual description in the Indictment by any of the exhibits presented. According to the defense counsel, it is the Prosecution evidence that dispute the assumptions in the factual description about the accused, as a member of the organized criminal group, planning and arranging with persons known to him and with the second accused, Saudin Duvnjak, the robbery of the money shipment and defining the role and precise actions of each individual member. The defense counsel further submitted that it undisputedly ensues from numerous Prosecution exhibits and from the documentary evidence of the defense that the accused Suad Glavinić is an employee of the Security Center in the Legal Department of the Sarajevo International

12

Airport and that at the time of the commission of the criminal offense he worked as a counter-sabotage controller, that is, that he was not an employee of the Cargo Center, as submitted in the factual description of the Indictment. Accordingly, the defense counsel argued that the terms of reference of a counter-sabotage operator are prescribed under the Rulebook on Job Systematization and the Operational Instructions on Counter-Sabotage Checking of Goods, Mail and VAL Shipments and that the Rulebook and the Instructions provides for the obligations of counter-sabotage operators without specifying an obligation on the part of a counter-sabotage operator to lock a padlock and put a security tape, which was confirmed, as ascertained by the defense counsel, by the Chief of the Security and Safety Center of the Sarajevo Airport, Vojislav Dolić. The defense counsel also commented on the Prosecution submissions in the closing arguments about denying the possibility that the masked individual is holding a key with two fingers, as a comment on the video recording on which one can see a masked individual taking something out of the pocket, maintaining that to hold a key to an ordinary small padlock, as described by witnesses, it does not take many fingers or major force to open a padlock. Furthermore, the defense counsel believed that a key issue, which the investigation failed to reveal, is who of the employees made a duplicate of the key to the padlock in the export area, or which of the individuals, who changed the padlock on the doors more than once, at least according to witness testimonies, provided for the unidentified individuals a copy or a duplicate of the key, which is possible, given the abuses of the key protocols as confirmed by everyone. The defense counsel also pointed out that the Elzett keys found (2 pieces) in the torched Audi Q7 were never compared to the original keys to the export area, seized by the agencies conducting the on-site investigation, which, according to the defense counsel, would have cleared the accused Suad Glavinić, because the investigation would have taken a more difficult course, that is, the course of tracing down the individual who made the duplicate. In conclusion to his closing arguments, the defense counsel argued that the obligation of the Court was to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at the main trial, guided by the principle In Dubio Pro Reo, and moved the Court to acquit the accused Suad Glavinić of the charges, as it was not proven that he had committed the criminal offense charged by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH. The accused Suad Glavinić consented to the arguments by his defense counsel and pointed out that he did lock the disputable padlock and put a security tape. c) Defense for the accused Saudin Duvnjak The defense counsel for the accused Saudin Duvnjak, attorney Almin Dautbegović, agreed with everything presented in the closing arguments by the defense counsel for the first accused and maintained in his closing arguments that the defense for the accused Saudin Dautbegović had managed to prove that he was not guilty of the criminal offenses charged with by the Prosecutor’s Office. First of all, the defense counsel argued that the act of identification of the accused Saudin Duvnjak was unlawful and that the key evidence of the Prosecution, charging his client with the criminal offense of aggravated robbery, was the witness/aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto, who recognized the accused Duvnjak as a person who misappropriated his vehicle, Audi Q7. The defense counsel pointed out that in the course of the identification on the premises of the Sarajevo Canton MUP on 01 March 2008, the aggrieved party pointed at the accused Saudin Duvnjak and the defense counsel submitted at the spot that the act was unlawful. Therefore, the defense counsel argued that

13

according to the procedure under CPC BiH the aggrieved party was bound to describe the person who misappropriated his vehicle prior to the identification, which was done, and the aggrieved party said the individual was about 1.90 cm tall, of athletic built, with short hair. However, the defense counsel argued, the persons with the accused in the lineup were not even remotely similar to the accused, rendering the act of identification unlawful, according to the defense counsel. The defense counsel further submitted that the aggrieved party said that following the misappropriation of his vehicle he went to a funeral, in an attempt to find there the person who misappropriated his vehicle, which he did, but the question is why he never said anything about it to any of the police officers. Moreover, the defense counsel argued that the defense in the case called a number of witnesses who gave an alibi to the accused, that is, who confirmed that the accused Saudin Duvnjak at the time of the vehicle misappropriation could not have been at the scene of the act, which was further confirmed by the work attendance sheet for the period of January-December 2007, which shows that the accused was at work at the time of the misappropriation of the vehicle at issue. Based on the above, in conclusion of his closing arguments, the defense counsel moved the Court to render an acquitting verdict concerning his client. The accused Saudin Duvnjak fully agreed with his defense counsel’s arguments, maintaining he was innocent, that is, he did not commit the crimes charged against him by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH. 5. Panel Conclusions and Reasoning A. General Observations Guided primarily by the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provided for under Article 15 of the CPC BiH, the Court conducted the proceedings to the end of providing for an innocent person to be acquitted and a perpetrator of an offense to be convicted under the conditions provided by the Criminal Code of BiH and in the procedure stipulated by law (Article 2(1) of the CPC BiH). In this light, the Trial Panel evaluated the evidence presented in the case in accordance with certain fundamental principles of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, as follows: Article 3(1) of the CPC BiH stipulates that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this light, the Prosecutor has the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused and the Prosecution must establish it beyond reasonable doubt, as, a doubt with respect to the existence of facts constituting the alleged criminal offense must be decided in the manner more favorable to the accused (Article 3(2) of the CPC BiH). Finally, the Court must study and evaluate with equal attention evidence that are exculpatory as well as inculpatory to the accused (Article 14 of the CPC BiH). Pursuant to the above principles, as well as the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the Panel carefully examined all evidence presented at the main trial by both the Prosecution and the defense. When evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses giving evidence in the proceedings, the Panel assessed their conduct and demeanor while giving evidence, examined the

14

consistence of their testimony in the courtroom with the statements given in the course of the investigation, compared the facts provided by one witness with the facts given by other witnesses and with documentary evidence, in order to establish whether they are corroborated or disputed by other evidence in the case. Further, comprehensive documentary evidence were tendered in the case and the Trial Panel examined each exhibit tendered, in order to decide on their reliability and probative value. The defense for the second accused, Saudin Duvnjak, contested the lawfulness of the Record of Identification no. 02/2-2-Sl/08 of 1 March 2008 throughout the main trial and in their closing arguments, submitting that the lights in the lineup room were less than adequate and that the persons in the lineup with the accused Saudin Duvnjak did not even remotely resemble the accused, to which the defense counsel reacted at the spot, which was noted in the Record of Identification. Having examined the above Record of Identification, the Court found it was composed in the form stipulated by law; prior to the identification the aggrieved party described the person, the aggrieved party was shown five individuals, including the accused Duvnjak, all objections put by the defense counsel were noted in the Record and it was signed by all persons required to do so. Therefore, the act of identification was conducted in a lawful manner, on the premises of MUP KS, with the usual lighting and with the lineup of several individuals, which was all confirmed by the employees of MUP KS, who were in the lineup and who were summoned to the main trial as witnesses for the defense. Among these individuals, there were persons who were approximately of the same built and body as the accused; besides, it cannot be realistically expected that one can always find for the identification the persons who are exactly of the same build and body as the accused, so that the above objections by the defense cannot impede the lawfulness of this evidence within the meaning of Article 10 of the CPC BiH. Namely, Article 10 of the CPC BiH clearly defines the notion of unlawful evidence, meaning that legally invalid evidence are those sources of knowledge which are obtained or presented in a manner forbidden by law. The evidence obtained through violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as essential violations of procedural laws are labeled as unlawfully obtained evidence on which court decision may not be based. The issue of unlawful evidence can be classified into three categories: - evidence obtained through violations of certain fundamental rights and freedoms - evidence for which law specifically provides they must not be used when rendering a court decision in criminal proceedings - evidence which would not have been obtained by the criminal procedure authorities without information from unlawful evidence (the so-called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree). The Panel is satisfied that the above objection by the defense cannot undermine the lawfulness of the above evidence within the meaning of the quoted legal provision, so it will be subject to free evaluation, whose probative value will be assessed by the Court in combination with other evidence presented.

15

It should also be noted that the Panel, when rendering a decision in this case, took under the advisement all evidence presented at the main trial, but did not deem it necessary to analyze them in detail in the Verdict, unless it found them relevant to the rendering of a final decision on the criminal responsibility of the accused for the commission of the above criminal offense. The Panel did this, because those evidence would not ultimately affect the finally established state of facts and conclusions reached by the Panel based on the evidence whose detailed assessment was presented in this Verdict, all within the meaning of Article 15 of the CPC BiH, providing for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, without formal limitations and without particular evidentiary rules. B. Evidence and Evaluation of Evidence Relative to Elements of Individual Criminal Offenses a) General Elements of Criminal Offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) CC BiH The Indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH charged the accused with the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH in conjunction with the criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH and the criminal offense of Aggravated Robbery under Article 289(2) of the CC FBiH. Article 250(2) of the CC BiH prescribes that the criminal offense of organized crime is committed by every one who as a member of an organized criminal group perpetrates a criminal offense prescribed by the law of BiH for which a punishment of imprisonment of three years or a more severe punishment may be imposed and heavier punishment is not foreseen for a particular criminal offense. For a criminal offense of organized crime to exist, as an essential element of this criminal offense it is necessary that certain criminal offenses, defined under the laws of BiH, are committed as part of a membership in an organized criminal group. The notion of an organized criminal group is defined as a structured group of at least three or more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of perpetrating one or more criminal offenses for which a punishment of imprisonment of three years or a more severe punishment may be imposed under the laws of BiH. b) Responsibility of Accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak for Criminal Offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) CC BiH The question is whether the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak were members of the organized criminal group which misappropriated the VAL money shipment in the amount of KM 2,500,000.00 at the Sarajevo International Airport at about 14:00 hrs of 5 December 2007, that is, whether the above robbery was carried out following a previous plan and agreement between the accused and the individuals known to them, whereas the group consisted of at least four more members, after all of them in advance together planned everything in detail and then prepared and developed in detail the role of each member of the criminal group with specified actions each of them was supposed to carry out at any given moment.

16

Having assessed all the evidence presented, individually and collectively, the Court finds it indisputable that on 5 December 2007, on the premises of the Cargo Center of the Sarajevo International Airport, there was an aggravated robbery by four unidentified masked individuals, whereby an ABS Bank money shipment in the total value of about EUR 1,315,755.46 or KM 2,500,000.00 was misappropriated, which was all undisputedly established by reviewing video recordings of the money theft from the premises of the Cargo Center, as well as based on witness testimonies and documentary evidence tendered, but none of the evidence presented ties the accused to the commission of the criminal offense at hand. The witness Saudin Selimović, an employee of ABS Bank, who at the time worked as a driver, confirmed that on 4 December 2007 he drove the money shipment to the Sarajevo International Airport, but it was returned, as the plane did not take off; therefore, on 5 December 2007, after receiving an order to dispatch the money to the Sarajevo International Airport, as an authorized bank official, he drove it in an armored vehicle to the MAS Cargo Center; at the main trial, he described in detail the manner in which the handover of the shipment was carried out. This was confirmed by the witness Darjan Veličan, working as a transport officer at MAS. He said at the main trial that on 5 December 2007, at about 14:00 hrs, in the area of the Cargo Center, there was a takeover of the so-called VAL shipment of the ABS Bank that they carried out the control weighting and x-rayed it, after which the shipment was dispatched to the export area of the Cargo Center. The witness Amela Kolar, an ABS Bank employee, working at the central treasury, also confirmed the above money amount; she said that a colleague of hers from the treasury made an itemized list of currencies and amounts and faxed it to her, which was then given with other documents to the driver transporting the shipment. The ABS Bank document no. S-71/07 of 5 December 2007 shows that the ABS Bank announced the shipment for 5 December 2007 for the flight Sarajevo – Vienna – Zurich, while the bank itemized list of currencies and amounts (document no. S-71/07 of 5 December 2007) shows it was a money shipment of a number of foreign currencies, to the total counter-value of about EUR 1,315,755.46 or KM 2,500,000.00. The witness Vahid Agić, an ABS Bank employee working as Chief of the Security Section, explained why the request for police escort of the money transport, which he signed, read it was the money shipment of KM 6,000,000.00, explaining that he never knows the exact amount of the money shipment, but he does know that the maximum security amount is KM 7,300,000.00. As they always notify him if the maximum amount is being transported, which they did not do this time, he put down the KM 6,000,000.00, as he usually did. The witnesses Vahidin Šahinpašić and Slađenko Čerkez confirmed that they were members of the SIPA on-site investigation team carrying out the on-site investigation on 5 December 2007 on the premises of the MAS Cargo Center after the robbery. These witnesses testified in detail about the on-site investigation carried out at the scene, which was noted in the Record of On-site Investigation no. 02/2-2-113/07 and the Report on Crime Scene Investigation no. K.U.3198/07 of 5 December 2007. The witness Vahidin Šahinpašić analyzed and explained in detail at the main trial the footage of the video recordings from the Cargo Center recording the robbery and the photographs (1-61) made from the

17

recording, which had the names of the individuals on them, which data were obtained following the interviews of the employees. Witnesses Nijaz Zuban, Emina Vukičević, Mirhat Rajkić, Mensur Bašić, Darjan Veličan, Midhat Ovčina and Senad Granilo, who were heard in the course of the main trial, who happened to be on the premises of the MAS Cargo Center on 5 December 2007, during the time period between 14:30 and 15:00 hrs, all confirmed that on the above date, some time before 15:00 hrs, a vehicle entered the area of the Cargo Center, 4 masked persons exited the vehicle, these witnesses believed they were members of the police as they said “SIPA, drugs” and asked for the boss. The witness Nijaz Zuban, Head of the Sales Department at the Cargo Center, said at the main trial that he had been informed by a colleague of his, Emina Vukičević, that uniformed police officers had arrived and were looking for him, to which he, as he submitted, went down to the ground part of the Cargo Center, where a person in a camouflage uniform was saying “SIPA, drugs” and the witness really believed they were members of a SIPA special unit. The witness said he went to the export area of the Cargo Center, where he was ordered to stand next to a colleague of his, Mirsad Halilović, whom the masked persons ordered to open the tarpaulin on the trolley, which he did. The witness submitted he noticed police officers of the State Border Service lying on the ground, so it was in that moment that he realized the masked persons were not police officers. The witness further said the masked persons took the bags from the trolley and headed for the vehicle they had arrived in, got into it and left the Cargo Center at high speed. These witness testimonies are corroborated by the video recordings on the cameras set up at the MAS Cargo Center, which recorded the above money robbery, whose examination undisputedly revealed that on 5 December 2007, at 14:39:04, Mirsad Halilović approaches the door of the export area and unlocks the padlock; at 14:39:38, Milenko Samardžija and Nedeljko Cicović arrive; at 14:39:55, the money is brought into the export area and Mirsad Halilović enters the area with the money; at 14:40:21, Suad Glavinić approaches the door and carries out an action for which it cannot be established what it was, as he has his back turned on the camera, Darijan Veličanin approaches him; at 14:40:229 Glavinić walks away from the door, Darijan Veličanin looks behind his back, in the direction of the padlock; at 14:43:27, Darijan Veličanin pulls down the roller door of the Cargo Center to a certain level; at 14:41:56, Glavinić puts security tape over the padlock; at 14:42:04, Glavinić walks away from the door, red security tape is on the padlock; at 14:48:21, Glavinić exits the Cargo Center with Armin Ičindić (who explained that he went with Glavinić to the airport runaway to take over the shipment from the Adria flight); at 14:50:12, four masked perpetrators in a vehicle enter the area of the Cargo Center; at 14:50:58, a masked individual approaches the door to the Cargo Center; at 14:53:17, four unidentified perpetrators leave the Cargo Center in a vehicle with the money bags. Furthermore, the manner in which the offense was committed indicates it was done by a very well organized group, which had to have a number of accessories in order to carry out such a robbery, probably even somebody on the inside in the Cargo Center, who must have been familiar with the security measures at the Cargo Center and the premises layout therein.

18

This is also corroborated by the fact that the witness Alan Bajić, Director of the ITT Sector at MAS, confirmed that on 5 December 2007, at 14:21 hrs, the recording system in the office of Mirhat Rajkić was switched off and switched back on at 14:50 hrs; the switch off could only have been done by somebody entering the office in person, switching the recording system off, and entering it again to switch it on. The witness further clarified there was a double recording system in place, that is, the recording was done at two spots: Rajkić’s office at the Cargo Center premises and in the airport building, so that even if a local system were switched off (at the Cargo Center), the recording on the main system would continue (in the airport building). Only this witness and the airport management knew of this double recording system. Furthermore, the witness Enes Pašić, who was on the premises of the Cargo Center at the time of the robbery, confirmed it was he who notified the MAS dispatcher by Motorola that there was something suspicious going on at the Cargo Center, that it could be a robbery of VAL shipment in progress, that SBS should be notified, and after a short while (he could not be exact as to how long after), he notified the dispatcher once again that it was definitely a robbery; this call that he made could be heard by anybody who was on that channel at the time. This was confirmed by the witness Nikolina Bušić, a dispatcher at MAS; she confirmed that on 5 December 2007, at about 15:00 hrs, she was alerted from the Cargo Center of a possible robbery of the VAL shipment, on which she immediately notified the SBS shift leader, calling him by phone and by radio, and shortly afterwards she received a confirmation from the Cargo Center that it was definitely a robbery. This is also confirmed by the audio recording with a CD, which contains the entire conversation between the Cargo employees and the MAS dispatcher, as well as by the SIPA Official Report no. 17-02/03-383/06 of 11 February 2008. At the main trial, the Prosecutor’s Office did not present any evidence which would clarify the fact as to who switched off and back on the recording system in the office of the Cargo Center or why the responsible services failed to react after being notified of a robbery of the VAL shipment at the Cargo Center. All of this indicates that the commission of this criminal offense was carefully planned and organized; however, the Prosecutor’s Office did not present a single piece of evidence tying the first and the second accused to this organized criminal group, that is, not a single piece of evidence was presented based on which the Panel could conclude that between the first and the second accused or either one of them and the four unidentified persons who carried out the robbery there was a previous plan and agreement to misappropriate the money shipment of the ABS Bank, which was at the Cargo Center of the Sarajevo International Airport on 5 December 2007. All the Prosecutor’s Office offered were mere indicia, without firm foundation in the facts, which did not suffice for the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Glavinić and Duvnjak were members of such an organized criminal group, that is, that they committed the criminal offense charged against them in the Indictment. Namely, the Prosecution charged the first accused, Suad Glavinić, that, “contrary to the usual procedure in practice, he left the padlock at the door to the room where the VAL shipment was placed unlocked, and put a security tape on the padlock, so that everything

19

would appear regular and sealed, while in fact he left the padlock at the door to the room in the Cargo Centre unlocked”. The Panel did not find this Prosecution thesis well-founded through the evidentiary procedure. First of all, it should be noted that the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH submitted in the factual description of the Indictment that the accused Suad Glavinić is a Cargo Center employee, which the evidentiary procedure showed to be false, as the witnesses Mirjana Dizdar, Nijaz Zuban, Emina Vukičević, Enes Pašić and Vojislav Dolić, confirmed at the main trial that the accused is not a Cargo Center employee, but an employee of the Center for Security and Safety of the Sarajevo International Airport, that is, that he performs the tasks and duties of a counter-sabotage controller at the MAS Security and Safety Center in the Sector for Legal, Personnel and Administrative Affairs, which also arises undisputedly from Article 3 of the Employment Contract concluded between the Sarajevo International Airport and Suad Glavinić, which the Prosecution tendered into the case file. This is relevant, as it must be established what were the tasks and duties in the terms of reference for the accused Glavinić. The Rulebook on Job Systematization, tendered as exhibit by both the Prosecution (Additional T-2) and the defense for the first accused (O-1A), provides on page 49 a detailed description of the duties for the job of counter-sabotage controller, which is the job of the accused Suad Glavinić, but it does not mention any obligations or duties of a counter-sabotage controller when it comes to unlocking and locking of the export area of the Cargo Center into which a VAL shipment is taken after the checkup. The Rulebook reads that the above tasks would be carried out in accordance with the applicable operational instructions. Operational Instructions on Counter-Sabotage Control of Goods, Mail and VAL Shipments at the Cargo Center of the Sarajevo International Airport from January 2006 stipulates the duties of a counter-sabotage controller with VAL shipments and with regular shipments. As this case pertains to a VAL shipment (money shipment), all 8 sections of the Instructions pertaining to VAL shipments had to be examined, and it was established that there is no mention of the obligations and duties of a counter-sabotage controller pertaining to the unlocking and locking of the export area of the Cargo Center from which the VAL shipment (money shipment of the ABS Bank) was misappropriated. This was also confirmed by the witness Vojislav Dolić, Chief of the Airport Security and Safety Center, at the main trial hearing of 24 November 2008, confirming that the Operational Instructions on Counter-Sabotage Control of Goods, which he personally made and signed on 20 August 2006, does not explicitly mention the obligation of a counter-sabotage operator to lock the padlock of the export area, but he clarified that if a particular thing changed, it does not have to be put in writing, it is sufficient that an oral order is given, which also ensues from the Rulebook on Job Systematization, that is, the terms of reference for a counter-sabotage operator, which reads that a counter-sabotage operator also carries out other tasks upon the order by the Head of the Department. This witness also confirmed that on 5 December 2007, Suad Glavinić did not receive an oral order to lock the padlock; however it was standard practice that counter-sabotage operators lock the padlock in the export area and put security tape over it. Further, in response to a direct question by the Prosecutor, the witness said it was logical that the provisions in the Operational Instructions pertaining to regular shipments also applied to VAL shipments.

20

The Court could not accept the evidence of this witness in the part pertaining to his submission that the practice was such that counter-sabotage operators would lock the padlock in the export area after a VAL shipment is brought in, as all witnesses working at the Cargo Center and observing daily the procedure of locking the padlock in the export area, some of whom unlocked and locked the padlock themselves, confirmed otherwise. Namely, the witness Mirsad Halilović, working at the warehouse of the Cargo Service, who on the relevant day unlocked the padlock on the door of the export area, confirmed that the padlock on the door of the export area, once a VAL shipment is entered, is locked, sometimes by the CS controller and sometimes by an employee of the Cargo Center, it has always been done that way; however, a CS controller is the only one authorized to put red security tape over the padlock. The testimony of this witness was confirmed by the witness Mirhat Rajkić, Chief of the Customs Warehouse at MAS, who also confirmed that the padlock on the export area can be locked even by an employee of the export/cargo, but only a CS controller can put security tape. The witness Mensur Bašić, working as an assistant warehouse operator at MAS, confirmed that he himself unlocked and locked the padlock in the export area several times, after which a CS controller puts security tape, on which he notes the date and hour it is put on and signs it. This was confirmed by the witnesses Darijan Veličanin and Midhat Ovčina, as well as Sanin Kapić, who sometimes substituted Suad Glavinić as CS controller, he confirmed it would be a Cargo employee to lock the padlock in the export area, with him only putting the security tape on the padlock. The Panel gave credence to the testimonies of these witnesses as they were clear, precise and mutually consistent about the obligation to lock the disputable padlock. Furthermore, these individuals work on these jobs and duties, they have daily opportunity to observe the procedure of receiving and dispatching VAL shipments, some of them even worked as CS controllers; these are also consistent with the Rulebook on Job Systematization and the Operational Instructions on CS Examination of Goods, Mail and VAL Shipments at the Cargo Center of the Sarajevo International Airport. Further, the Panel could not accept the submission of the witness Vojislav Dolić that it is logical that the rules mentioned in the above Operational Instructions pertaining to regular shipments should apply on VAL shipments, as it is obvious upon their review that the two instructions are clearly and undisputedly separate and distinct entities; there is a date, seal and signature on the bottom of each, each explains in detail, in various sections, the obligations of CS controllers in various situations and there is no mention of the rules applicable for regular shipments to be applied on VAL shipments. It is true it was this witness who composed and signed the instructions, but exactly this, according to the Panel, can be the reason why this witness wants somehow to justify the fact that certain things concerning the manner of work, such as the locking of a padlock in the export area, remained unspecified, so he is trying to “cover for” this lack of precision by invoking logic or standard practice, which was also denied by all Cargo employees working on those jobs, who, too, are familiar with the contents of the Operational Instructions, as they abide by them.

21

Therefore, the Prosecution failed to prove that the accused Suad Glavinić, according to the practice and procedure, was the person in charge of the locking of the disputable padlock on the door of the export area. It is true, in accordance with what the above witnesses confirmed, that the accused Glavinić could carry out the action of locking of the disputable padlock; however, based on all evidence presented, the Panel cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Glavinić left the padlock unlocked as part of the plan and prior agreement with four unidentified persons who carried out the above money robbery, as charged by the Prosecution. The specific act of locking the padlock cannot be seen on the video recording, as the accused is obstructing the view to the padlock with his back (the video recording shows that the money enters the room at 2:39:55, Glavinić approaches the padlock; at 2:40:021, he does something which is not clear on the recording, as he has his back turned to the camera; at 2:40:29, Glavinić walks away from the door). Furthermore, in relation to this act, the Panel could not rely upon any of the witness testimonies, as they are unclear, imprecise and contradictory relative to the fact whether and who locked the padlock. The witness Mirsad Halilović, who was sitting inside the export area of the Cargo bay, said at the main trial that in the case at hand he was not certain whether the padlock was locked by the accused Glavinić or by the worker Darjan Veličan; he said he did not hear the standard click of the padlock which is generally heard when unlocking and locking it; he said in his statement before the police that it was Glavinić who locked the door. On the other hand, the witness Darjan Veličan, who was in the vicinity of the accused, which is also obvious from the video recording, said in his testimony at the main trial that the accused Glavinić locked the padlock and that he did hear the usual click of the padlock, explaining that he had said the same in the course of the investigation, but he does not know why it was not recorded. The witness Nedeljko Cicović, too, said in the investigation that after the money was brought into the export area the padlock was closed, but he could not confirm it at the main trial, saying he could not remember it with certainty. Due to such contradictions, changes and uncertainty in giving testimony, the Panel could not give credence to any witness testimony as to whether and who locked the padlock, as none of the witnesses said precisely that he saw the moment when the accused Glavinić took the action of locking the padlock, but they mostly base their submissions on whether or not they heard the usual click of the padlock which can be heard when unlocking and locking it. Bearing in mind that there is no peace and quiet in the area of the Cargo Center, but rather there are regular activities of receiving and loading the goods, it cannot be expected that one hears the click of the padlock, so the Panel could not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt whether the padlock in the export part really remained locked or not. However, the Court did establish undisputedly, based on all witness testimonies and as can be seen on the video recording on 5 December 2007 by the security cameras placed inside the Cargo Center, that the accused Glavinić approaches the padlock at 14:42:00, and puts security tape; at 14:42:04 Glavinić walks away from the door and it is clear that the padlock with red security tape over it remains there, therefore, it was undisputedly established that after Glavinić walks away from the export area, there remains the padlock on the door and

22

red security tape is put over it, which he had put there, which was the only obligation on the part of Suad Glavinić pertaining to the locking of the door in the export area. The Prosecution further submitted in the factual description of the Indictment that “one of the three remaining criminals slightly moved his hand as if unlocking the padlock, took off the security tape covering the padlock, put the padlock into his pocket, and then simply opened the door to the room where money was placed”. In this part as well, one cannot see based on the video recordings of 4 December and 5 December 2007 by the video cameras set up inside the Cargo Center whether the masked individual is actually unlocking the padlock or not, given that the masked individual had his back turned to the camera, so one cannot see what he was doing. In the course of the evidentiary procedure, the Prosecution was constructing the thesis that the masked individual did not unlock the padlock, as he did not have the key in his right hand, maintaining it could be seen on the video recording at the moment when this masked individual held his right hand fingers in the gloves stretched, where it clearly shows that all fingers, except for the thumb were stretched, so the Prosecution concluded that this person could not have been holding a key by a thumb. In this context, a professional witness for the Prosecution, Elmedin Kobiljak, said at the main trial that by observing the tones of the color on the right fist of the masked person one can notice a change in the tone near the thumb, but due to bad quality of the recording one cannot say with certainty whether the masked individual is holding an object in his hand or not; answering a specific question, he said it could have been a key, but it cannot be established with certainty. On the other hand, as already pointed out, the Panel refused the Prosecution motion moving that a repeated expert evaluation be done in Vienna as additional Prosecution evidence, the subject of which would be to use potentially more advanced technology to attempt to establish whether the masked individual was holding an object in his right hand or not; however, even if this expert evaluation were able to show whether the person was holding an object (key) in his right hand or not, the question arises as to what about the left hand of the masked individual, which was never subject of analysis; it can be clearly seen on the recording that the masked individual, at the moment of approaching the export area door, makes a gesture as if transferring something from one hand into the other, and as of that moment, the left fist of the person is constantly bent; thus, the Prosecution motion for repeated expert evaluation of the right hand was refused, because, regardless of the result thereof, it would not provide an answer to the question whether the accused Suad Glavinić left the padlock on the door in the export area of the Cargo Center unlocked. The only indisputable fact is that the masked individual took the red security tape off the padlock, which can be seen on the recording and which was confirmed by the witnesses Nevenko Samardžija, Nedeljko Cicović and Mirsad Halilović, who were in the export area of the Cargo Center at the time of the robbery. The witness Halilović confirmed that, as he was sitting close to the door of the export area, he saw the masked person taking off the security tape of the padlock, but he did not carefully observe what he was doing as he thought it was really a SIPA operation, it was only when the person started pushing the door to the right he said they were to be pushed to the left to be opened. The witnesses Cicović

23

and Samardžija confirmed that the masked individual wearing a SIPA uniform took off the security tape of the padlock and they saw the security tape on the finger of the individual wearing gloves after this person opened the door and entered the export area. It is important to note that the witness Sanin Kapić, a CS operator at MAS, who sometimes substituted for Glavinić, explained in detail at the main trial the manner of gluing of security tape onto the padlock in the export area; so he explained it was “an ordinary yellow-golden padlock, the security tape is glued only around the body of the padlock and not around the upper metal part, explaining that the tape cannot be taken off by putting the finger under the tape and ripping it off, as it is impossible to put a finger under, given it is glued and given the material it is made of. He also said the tape was self-adhesive, made of material that cracks easily; perhaps one might try to take it off by hand, but it would certainly rip apart and it would be difficult to do so; to rip it off, they use the key to rip the bottom part of the tape, where the key is to be entered, and take it off. The Court accepted this witness testimony, as no doubt whatsoever is cast on it; namely, the witness explained very clearly, precisely and convincingly the manner of putting and removing of the security tape, he was in the position to put and remove the tape himself repeatedly and he is surely very familiar with the manners in which the tape can be taken off, which is confirmed by the testimonies of the witnesses Vojislav Dolić and Senad Granilo. The Panel finds these witness testimonies relevant in the context of the Prosecution submissions that the masked individual taking off the security tape is not holding any object in his hand, that is, the Prosecution submissions that given the short time in which the masked individual opened the padlock (several seconds), the fact that the masked individual is wearing gloves, which renders the unlocking more difficult, and the fact that the recording does not show that the masked individual is using any force or effort to break up the padlock, from which the Prosecution draws the conclusion that the padlock was unlocked. The Panel is satisfied that these witness testimonies and these Prosecution submission actually raise another question, which is, how could a masked individual, wearing thick gloves, if he was not holding anything in his hand, take off the security tape in place in such a short time, which the witnesses saw on his finger in a glove after it was taken off (which means that the tape was in one piece rather than ripped off), given the testimonies of the witnesses Sanin Kapić and Senad Granilo on the possible methods of taking the tape off, thus, one can logically conclude that it takes much less time and it is easier for a person wearing gloves to unlock the padlock by using a key or some other adequate item than to use fingers in tick gloves to take the glued security tape off. The Court is bound by law, if in doubt as to relevant facts that have consequences to the detriment of the accused, to act as if it had established with certainty that this legally relevant fact does not exist. In this context, the Panel may also assume that the padlock was locked and that the masked individual unlocked it with a key, having previously obtained the duplicate of the key, which was not so hard to obtain in the first place, as those, given the organization of the Cargo Center, taking and returning of the keys and their security, were available to great many persons, which was confirmed by all Cargo Center employees heard as witnesses. Thus, the witnesses Mirsad Halilović, Mensur Bašić, Darijan Veličanin, Nijaz Zuban and Midhat Ovčina consistently confirmed that all the keys, including the key

24

to the disputable padlock, were in the office of Mirhat Rajkić, in the cabinet that was never locked, and there was a copy machine in the same room, so people would go in when they wanted to make a copy. The witness Darijan Veličanin confirmed that sometimes (if they were on duty on a weekend) Cargo employees would take the key to the outside vertical roller door and take it home, so, by unlocking the vertical roller door, they had access to the entire warehouse space of the Cargo Center and, thus, to the cabinet with the disputable keys which was never locked. Further, the witness Mirhat Rajkić, Head of the Customs Warehouse in the Cargo Center, said at the main trial that there were no records of possession, taking and returning of the above keys, so it is clear that the keys to the padlock of the export area of the Cargo Center were available to great many individuals and it was not particularly difficult to make a duplicate. As for the issue whether the disputable padlock was opened by a key or not, it remains unclear why in the course of the investigation no expert evaluation was made on the keys to the Elzett lock (photo no. 3 in the SIPA Photo-documentation on Vehicle Search of 26 December 2007) found in the torched vehicle Audi Q7 that was used in the robbery and why they were not compared to the keys to the export area that were used to unlock and lock the disputable door, which were found during the on-site investigation at their spot in the cabinet in the Cargo Center, given that it could give an answer to the question whether they are the same keys, that is, whether the robbers were in the possession of duplicate keys. Further, the Prosecution theory that the accused Glavinić had two cell phones and used a cell phone which he did not have registered, that is, whose number was not registered in his name, allegedly, to give the green light to the masked individuals to carry out the misappropriation of the ABS Bank money shipment, is merely an assumption. The Panel finds indisputable that on 4 December 2007, the accused Glavinić talked on his cell phone at 2:32:38 till 2:33:55, and on 5 December 2007, at 2:31:20 he makes a motion as if putting his cell phone against his head, which was undisputedly established upon review of the recording by the camera C and the photographs made upon the recordings. It is also indisputable that the listings shown in the matrix scheme of outgoing and incoming calls for the number 061/186-544, for which it was found it was used by the accused Suad Glavinić, and the witnesses, Cargo employees, confirmed it was the number used by this accused, prove that there were no outgoing and incoming calls at the above time, that is, that Glavinić did not talk on his cell phone at the time. However, it was never established which and whose cell phone Suad Glavinić talked on at the above time, nor was there any proof to confirm who Glavinić talked to at the above time or what the subject of the conversation was. The Prosecution theory that in the case at hand the only conclusion to be made is that on 4 December and 5 December 2007, the accused Glavinić established contact with direct perpetrators by this other cell phone, in the manner that on 4 December 2007 he alerted them of the flight being cancelled, so the planned robbery was postponed, and that on 5 December 2007, using the same cell phone, he gave the green light, as submitted by the Prosecution in their closing arguments, by “merely letting the phone ring once”, to direct perpetrators, this being a sign that the money was in the van in front of the Cargo Center, is a Prosecution makeup that cannot be accepted by the Court as proven beyond reasonable

25

doubt. The question also arises, justifiably so, as to why the accused Glavinić, who is surely familiar with the layout of the cameras in the Cargo Center, would call unidentified perpetrators by his cell phone in front of the cameras, when he could have simply made the phone call from a blind spot. Therefore, it is indisputable that during the relevant period the accused Glavinić contacted someone by cell phone, but who the accused Glavinić talked to and what the subject of the conversation was remains a mere speculation on the part of the Prosecution and the Court is not persuaded thereof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the submission made by the Prosecution throughout the main trial and in the closing arguments that the accused Glavinić was the only person in the Cargo Center who did not surrender his cell phone to the MUP KS officers on that evening, but rather went home and, only upon being called, he showed up on the premises of the MUP KS that evening, but he did not surrender his cell phone that time either, and it was only two days later that he was summoned to surrender his cell phone and he said he had lost it, does not prove that he committed the criminal offense charged by the Prosecution. First of all, the submission that the accused Glavinić was the only person who did not surrender his cell phone that evening is not true; namely, the witness Sanin Kapić said at the main trial that on that evening, following the robbery, nobody asked for his cell phone nor did he go the MUP KS on that evening, but it was only five days later that he surrendered his cell phone to SIPA, when he was summoned for interview, as well as the witness Ivan Veličanin, who also said at the main trial that on that evening nobody asked that he surrender his cell phone. Cargo employees heard as witnesses also could not confirm that there was some sort of official surrender of cell phones to authorized officials of MUP or SIPA, but only some of them said they surrendered their cell phones to Nijaz Zuban, Chief of the Cargo, while some others said that Alan Bajić, a MAS employee, took all cell phones in a plastic bag to the MUP KS that evening, which this witness fully denied at the main trial. Therefore, it is clear that there was no official procedure of the surrender of the cell phones immediately after the robbery, at the airport, and the witness Aleksandra Mizdrak, an employee of MUP KS, confirmed that on that evening after the robbery an individual from the SBS brought to her office a plastic bag with cell phones which were voluntarily surrendered by the SBS, Airport and Cargo Center employees, then, she and her colleagues called up individuals one by one for interview and each individual identified his or her cell phone from among those in the bag, which was would then singled out. This witness further confirmed that on that evening of 5-6 December 2007, Suad Glavinić went to MUP premises for an interview, thus the question arises as to why none of the MUP KS employees requested that he surrender his cell phone, but it was only several days later that he was summoned by SIPA employees to surrender his cell phone, especially when bearing in mind that on the scheme of incoming and outgoing calls for the number 061 186-544, for which it was found it was used by the accused Suad Glavinić, recorded were incoming and outgoing calls for that number even on 6 December 2007, therefore, Glavinić used the phone after the interview at the MUP. Besides, the Prosecution submitted that the accused Suad Glavinić undoubtedly had information that on 4 December 2007 the ABS Bank had announced a money shipment, which was postponed due to weather conditions for the day after, building a theory that

26

even upon this fact the accused Glavinić was involved in the above money robbery from the Cargo Center. However, in the course of the trial it was undisputedly found that beside the accused Glavinić, a number of individuals knew of the money shipment, given that it was to be dispatched on 4 December 2007 and that it underwent the procedures at the Cargo Center concerning the delivery of the so-called VAL shipments, but, due to bad weather conditions and the plane not taking off it was not dispatched, so its dispatching was postponed for 5 December 2007. This was also confirmed by the testimony of the witness Amela Kolar, an ABS Bank employee, working as the Head of the Central Treasury, who said at the main trial that it was only her, a colleague of hers at the treasury and the driver who knew of the itemized list of currencies and amounts, but given that the shipment had already been at the airport the day before, more persons could have known about it and about the quantities. This is corroborated by the evidence of the witness Nijaz Zuban, who confirmed that she, as well as most of the employees of the Cargo Center, knew that on 4 December 2007 a VAL shipment of the ABS Bank was returned as the flight was cancelled and that it was brought again on 5 December 2007, and the testimony of already mentioned witness, Saudin Selimović, who said that on 4 December 2007 the shipment was in the area of the Cargo Center, that for the shipment he had already received the labels to be put on bags (in which the money shipment was), and the bill of lading which, given that the dispatching of the shipment had been postponed for the next day, remained with him, that is, with his colleague at the bank, and he said he knew of the quantity of the money transported. It can be clearly concluded from all of the above that the Prosecution failed to prove through the evidence offered any elements of this criminal offense and thus prove the criminal responsibility of the accused Glavinić for the commission thereof, as the Prosecution should have offered reliable evidence thereof and not unsubstantiated indicia. As for the membership in the organized criminal group of the second accused Saudin Duvnjak and his responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense of organized crime, in the factual description of the Indictment the Prosecutor’s Office ties the second accused Saudin Duvnjak to the misappropriation of the motor vehicle Audi Q7, which took place on 26 June 2007 and which was used in the above money robbery at the Cargo Center, that is, they submit it was he who had the misappropriated vehicle hidden for 6 months, that is, until 5 December 2007, when he surrendered it to other members of the organized criminal group to be used to carry out the robbery. In this context, the Court finds it indisputable that the misappropriation of the money shipment from the Cargo Center was carried out using a motor vehicle Audi Q7, which was misappropriated from Jasmin Bahto on 26 June 2007, at about 23:00 hrs, at the site of Plandište, Ilidža municipality, near a Proming petrol station. The witness Jasmin Bahto confirmed at the main trial that his passenger motor vehicle Audi Q7 was misappropriated on the above date, described the features by which his vehicle can be recognized and which were identical to the characteristics found on the torched vehicle after the robbery, in Nedžarići. Thus, the witness Jasmin Bahto, after having reported his vehicle misappropriated, which can be seen in the Record by the Sarajevo Canton MUP, 4th Police Department of 26 June 2007, on 10 December 2007, five days after the misappropriation of the money shipment at the Cargo Center, carried out the identification

27

of the torched motor vehicle Audi Q7, which can be seen in the SIPA Record on Item Identification no. 17-02/3-383/06-1/07 of 10 December 2007. It arises from the Record that the witness-aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto, when examining the torched passenger motor vehicle Audi Q7 shown to him, having previously described it, pointed out to a number of particular parts matching the parts of his misappropriated vehicle, as follows: front left wheel, on which one can see an aluminum felly colored in shiny black and Good Year tires, Eagle F1 type, dimensions 275/45ZR20, for which the witness said he had the purchase receipt and for which he said in the description that the above fellies were “opaque black”, but he had subsequently had them painted shiny black. Further, the witness said when giving vehicle description that he had subsequently had two LCD screens built in into the driver and co-driver seats and a DVD device built in into the glove compartment; during the recognition he said that in the front part of the vehicle, where the glove compartment was, he noticed the remains of a DVD device he had had built in. Having recognized in the torched vehicle several other remains belonging to his vehicle, the witness said he was positive it was his vehicle. Furthermore, when giving vehicle description, this witness gave the number WAUZZZ4L77D057799 as the chassis number of his vehicle, which number was confirmed by an expert for chemical analysis, Hilmija Mašović, following expert evaluation on the torched motor vehicle Audi Q7, in his finding and opinion no. 09-14/1-1-04-5-6760 of 27 December 2007, that it was the original vehicle chassis number and it belonged to the vehicle examined, from which the Court draws indisputable conclusion that the misappropriation of the money shipment at the Cargo Center was done exactly using the passenger motor vehicle Audi Q7 which was misappropriated from Jasmin Bahto on 26 June 2007. Besides, the Court finds indisputable that in the course of the commission of the above robbery, the above vehicle had the registration plates no. 418-K-442, which are owned by Mustafa Devedžija. Namely, the witness Midhat Ovčina, an employee at the Cargo Center, working as shift leader in the Cargo Operations, said at the main trial, describing the manner in which the money robbery at the Cargo Center took place, that he had remembered a portion of the registration plates on the motor vehicle the masked individuals arrived in – the letter K and the last three digits being 442. The Court finds it indisputable that the owner of these registration plates was Mustafa Devedžija, which arises from the SIPA Examination Record no. 17-02/3-30/08 of 28 April 2008 of this witness, who said that on 27 June 2007, that is, the day after the misappropriation of the vehicle Audi Q7, he noticed his front and back registration plates were missing, and he said the above registration plates had the marking 418-K-442. The above indisputable facts, however, do not in any segment lead to the conclusion, that is, do not confirm the Prosecution theory according to which the accused Saudin Duvnjak was the person who had the misappropriated vehicle hidden for 6 months, that is, until 05 December 2007, when he surrendered the vehicle to other members of the organized criminal group to be used to carry out the robbery. The Prosecution did not offer a single exhibit to this end, so the question is what is the basis for the Prosecution conclusion, as can be seen in the Indictment, that the accused Saudin Duvnjak surrendered this motor vehicle to other members of the organized criminal group exactly on 5 December 2007, in particular if one bears in mind the Prosecution argument that the money robbery at the Cargo Center should have been carried out on 4 December 2007, but it was postponed because the money shipment was returned from the airport as the flight was cancelled.

28

In the case at hand, for Saudin Duvnjak to be considered a member of the organized criminal group, the Prosecution was bound to prove that he had had a plan and agreement with at least three other individuals, that together with them he planned the money robbery in detail, that together they prepared to the last detail the role of each member of the group, with specific actions each of them was to take, that as part of the plan he had the misappropriated vehicle hidden for 6 months, after which he surrendered it to other members of the group to be used to carry out the money robbery. However, these Prosecution submissions remain mere assumptions, as the Prosecution failed to present a single piece of evidence to this end. Therefore, the Panel reiterates that the Prosecution argument that there is connection between the persons who committed the robbery and the first and the second accused is a mere hypothesis, without a single relevant piece of evidence; thus, having analyzed all evidence presented at the main trial, individually and collectively, guided by the principle In Dubio Pro Reo, the Court concludes that the Prosecutor failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements of the criminal offense of organized crime, that is, the partaking of the accused in such organized group and thus failed to prove the existence of the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH. Based on the above, pursuant to Article 284(c) of the CPC BiH, stipulating that the Court shall render acquitting verdict if it is not proved that the accused committed the criminal offense charged against him, the Panel acquitted the accused of the commission of the criminal offense of Organized Crime under Article 250(2) of the CC BiH. As the Prosecution failed to prove that the accused constituted an organized criminal group within the meaning of Article 1(17) of the CC BiH, within which allegedly the criminal offenses of endangering the safety of air traffic or maritime navigation and aggravated theft were committed, the Court is in doubt as to the commission of individual criminal offenses described in the factual part of the Indictment. d) General Elements of Criminal Offense of Endangering Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) CC BiH The criminal offense of Endangering the Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) of the CC BiH, charged under the Indictment against both the first and the second accused, reads: “the punishment referred to in paragraph 1 (imprisonment for a term between one and ten years) of this Article shall be imposed on whoever performs violence against a person employed at an international airport or destroys or seriously damages airport facilities or an aircraft not in service, or disrupts the services of the airport”. e) Responsibility of Accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak for the criminal offense of Endangering Safety of Air Traffic or Maritime Navigation under Article 198(2) CC BiH Based on the evidence presented by the Prosecution, the Court finds that the actions by the accused do not meet the essential elements of the above criminal offense, as prescribed by the Criminal Code of BiH. Namely, the Panel finds indisputable that the violence was

29

committed against the persons employed at the Sarajevo International Airport, more specifically, against the members of the BiH Border Police, Nevenko Samardžija and Nedeljko Cicović, which ensues from the testimonies of these persons as witnesses at the main trial hearing of 13 November 2008; however, as already mentioned, the Court did not find the essential elements of this criminal offense in the actions of the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak, as it is indisputable that the criminal offense was committed by 4 unidentified masked individuals, whom the Prosecution did not include in the accused, therefore, assessing or observing this criminal offense per se, in conjunction with the earlier assessment by the Court according to which the organized criminal group, whose members allegedly included the accused, was not proven by the Prosecution; therefore the accused Glavinić and Duvnjak cannot be found guilty thereof. f) General Elements of Criminal Offense of Aggravated Theft under Article 289(2), CC FBiH The criminal offense of aggravated theft is committed by whoever, by use of force against a person or by threatening to instantly attack his life or limb, takes away a movable property of another with an aim of acquiring, by its appropriation, unlawful material gain for himself or for someone else, or with an aim of appropriating it (Article 289(1) CC FBiH) Paragraph 2 of this Article prescribes that if, by the criminal offense referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, a serious bodily injury is inflicted on a person with intent, or the criminal offence is perpetrated within a group of people, or a weapon or dangerous instrument is used. g) Responsibility of Accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak for the criminal offense of Aggravated Theft under Article 289(2) CC FBiH In the factual description, the Prosecutor’s Office submitted that the second accused Saudin Duvnjak committed the criminal offense of Aggravated Theft under Article 289(2) of the CC FBiH, in that on 26 June 2007, in the evening hours, in the vicinity of Proming petrol station, together with two other unknown persons, he stopped his vehicle behind the idling vehicle of Jasmin Bahto, Audi Q7, got out of the vehicle, approached him, while the other unknown person pointed a pistol at Jasmin Bahto, kicked him in the region of his right groin, saying: “get lost from the vehicle”, whereupon all three men sat in his car, started the engine using the keys that were in the ignition and drove away in an unknown direction. The Prosecutor’s Office of BiH heard the aggrieved party, the owner of the vehicle Audi Q7, Jasmin Bahto, on these circumstances. At the main trial hearing of 4 December 2008, the witness said that the person who misappropriated his vehicle, the second accused Saudin Duvnjak, pointing his finger at the accused, and described in detail the manner in which his motor vehicle was misappropriated on 26 June 2007; however, his testimony at the main trial differs in essential parts from the statement given in the course of the investigation and from the factual description in the Indictment. At the main trial hearing of 4 December 2007, the witness said that on the above date, at around 23:00 hrs, having stopped his vehicle Audi Q7 by the road, on a bus stop in the settlement of Ilidža, to relieve himself, he saw a vehicle, a white Golf, pull over, exiting

30

from which were two persons who approached him at a quick pace, which led the witness to conclude that something was wrong, then one of the persons (for whom the witness submits was the accused Duvnjak) kicked him in the groin area and said “get lost”, in order for the same person to pull out a pistol from a bag he carried on his body and pointed it in his direction, after which both persons sat into his vehicle and drove away, while the third person, who had never left the Golf vehicle, drove away in that vehicle after them. The witness confirmed at the main trial that he could not recognize this other person, who stood the entire time next to the person who kicked him and pointed the pistol at him, even if he were in the courtroom, as only this first person (the accused Duvnjak) talked to him and all attention of the witness was directed at him, as he was the one holding the pistol in his hand. The only thing the witness remembers about this other person is that he wore a checkers shirt. Unlike this testimony, in his statement given on the Record on Taking Oral Criminal Report of the MUP KS no. 02/3-4-3/07 of 26 June 2007 given before the police, where the aggrieved party went to right after the commission of the criminal offense, he said that the first person (the accused Duvnjak) kicked him in the groin area and that the other person (for whom the witness says was wearing a checkers shirt) had a pistol and pointed it at him and told him to “get lost from the vehicle”, after which both persons sat into his vehicle and using the key that was in the ignition started the engine and drove away in the direction of Ilidža. This Official Note was made by an employee of MUP CS, Lutvo Omerspahić, who was heard at the main trial and confirmed the contents thereof. Further, in the Official Report by MUP CS, General Crime Department, no. 02/2-2-Kn:4946/07 of 4 July 2007, made when the aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto reappeared at the MUP CS to report that certain other things were misappropriated from him together with the vehicle (cell phones, watch, expensive pen, etc.) and he repeated that one person, who approached him from the back, kicked him in the groin area, and when he attempted to defy this first person, the second person, wearing a checkers shirt, pointed the gun at him and chased him away from the vehicle. In this report the witness said that because it was dark and the area was scarcely lit, he only noticed one person whom he described as a person of approximately 30 years old, about 1.90 cm tall, robust, short hear on the side, wearing light trousers and a black short-sleeved T-shirt. This Official Note was made and signed by employees of MUP KS, Kenan Kapo and Admir Šalaka, who were heard at the main trial and who confirmed that Jasmin Bahto described in the above manner the misappropriation of his motor vehicle and confirmed that on 27 June 2007, following the criminal report filed by Jasmin Bahto about the above criminal offense being committed against him, they went to the scene and surveyed the site, on which they made the Official Note no. 02/2-2-2-316/07 of 27 June 2007. The Official Note reads that across from the bus stop of Plandište, where the criminal offense took place, there is the car repair shop Lada, which was not open at the relevant time, which was also confirmed by the aggrieved party Bahto, who said he did not see any lights either in the workshop or on the upper floor and there were no other houses or witnesses in the vicinity. When assessing the testimony of this witness, the Court started from the fact that if a court decision is to be based on one witness testimony, the testimony must be such as to leave no doubt whatsoever as to its accuracy and truthfulness.

31

In this light, first of all, the Court examined the ability of the aggrieved party, Jasmin Bahto, to see and remember the appearance of the person who committed the aggravated theft upon him and to which extent the witness attention was aimed at that person at the time of the commission of the criminal offense, and found were obvious contradictions in the evidence by the aggrieved party concerning the fact as to which of the two individuals approaching him his attention was aimed at. Namely, the aggrieved party Bahto said at the main trial that the first person (for whom he says is Duvnjak) kicked him and the same person pulled out a pistol from a bag and threatened him with it and he remembered this person exactly because he had a pistol in his hand; however, in his statements given to MUP, which he gave right after the commission of the offense he said exactly the opposite, that is, he said the first person (Duvnjak) kicked him and the other person wearing a checkers shirt had a pistol in his hand, thus, if looking at what the witness said at the main trial, it should be logical that his attention at the time was focused on the other person (who held the pistol according to his prior statement) and not on the person for whom the aggrieved party insists was the accused Duvnjak. In further analysis of the testimony of the aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto, the Court found a series of inconsistencies in the description of the incident relative to essential circumstances, starting from the very approach of the accused, degree of lighting at the scene of the incident and even the manner of departure of these persons. Thus, in the Official Note of 4 July 2007, the aggrieved party Bahto said it was night with no lights and the person for whom he insisted was the accused Duvnjak approached him from the back, while at the main trial the witness said the person was coming toward him, describing in detail the way he walked, and he maintained the spot he pulled over was lit and xenon lights on his car casting light in the direction of the accused helped him see him, saying at the same time that the vehicle head lights cannot cast light to the level of the head of a person in front of the vehicle, so a logical conclusion is that the lights could not have lit the face of the person approaching him. Further, at the main trial the witness submitted those two persons sat into his vehicle and drove off, pointing out that the key to his vehicle was in a small bag on the co-driver’s seat and that, to start his vehicle you do not have to put the key into ignition. On the other hand, in the statement given at the 4th Police Department on the very evening of his vehicle misappropriation, the witness said his car key was in the ignition at the moment and the persons started the car with the key, which lead the Court to conclude that the evidence of this witness is not entirely reliable, as he describes particular actions quite differently, always describing in great detail as if remembering clearly an action taking place exactly in the manner described. These contradictions are not insignificant, in terms of forming a firm conclusion that would arise from a clear and reliable testimony, from which one can draw a conclusion that would exclude any reasonable doubt as to the incident and the perpetrator thereof. Furthermore, the witness Jasmin Bahto confirmed that on 30 June 2007 he went to the funeral of Ramiz Delalić Ćelo to try to find a person who misappropriated his vehicle, given that there were many people there, he walked and looked around and recognized the person

32

who misappropriated his vehicle, he took a photograph of him by his cell phone and after he had had the photos developed, he handed them over to SIPA on 3 July 2007, which is noted in the Official Note no. 17-02/7-04-1-sl/07 of 3 July 2007, attached to which are two photographs. On the photograph, the person later identified as Saudin Duvnjak has black sunglasses on and has a squatting position. The witness Sulejman Iković, an employee of MUP CS, confirmed that on July 2007, they received these photographs from SIPA and they forwarded them to PDs in other cantons, and one police officer from Zenica, when visiting MUP CS, recognized Muharem Topčić on the photograph, standing on the photographs next to the person wearing sunglasses and that is how they learned the name of Saudin Duvnjak. On 1 March 2008, Jasmin Bahto carried out the identification on the premises of MUP CS and from among five individuals he recognized Saudin Duvnjak with 100% certainty as the person who committed aggravated theft against him on the relevant day, which is noted in the Record of Identification of MUP CS 02/2-2-Sl/08 of 1 March 2008. It is indisputable that the photographs taken by the aggrieved party Bahto at the funeral of Ramiz Delalić Ćelo show the accused Saudin Duvnjak and that on the premises of MUP CS the aggrieved party pointed to the accused Saudin Duvnjak as the person who committed the crime of aggravated theft against him. However, the Court is satisfied, given the ability of the witness to see and remember a person whom he sees for the first time in his life at night time on a scarcely lit place, as well as the fact that it is unclear which of the two persons the witness’s attention was focused on, the submission by the aggrieved party that the photograph taken by the aggrieved party at the funeral shows exactly this person cannot be deemed reliable, in particular when bearing in mind that the person on the photograph has dark sunglasses, that is, the witness could not see the person’s eyes, which is surely very important in identifying someone, in particular if you had seen the person only once, under above described conditions. Further, given that the accused Duvnjak is a person without any specific features or any particulars to remember him by (which is visible in the photograph attached), there is great likelihood that at the funeral there were many persons of similar built and appearance as Saudin Duvnjak. Furthermore, the act of identification at the MUP CS was carried out on 1 March 2008, seven months following the incident at hand; prior to the identification, describing the person who committed aggravated robbery against him, the aggrieved party said the person wore a white T-shirt at the moment of the commission of the criminal offense, while at the main trial he claimed the person wore a black T-shirt; the aggrieved party also said at the main trial that the other persons who were in the line-up with Saudin Duvnjak “did not even remotely look like him”, but it was not his problem. It is important to note that the aggrieved party Bahto has had the photographs from the funeral showing the accused Saudin Duvnjak since 30 June 2007, it is highly likely that the aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto, at MUP CS, exactly sought and identified the person from the photograph he had made at the funeral, which is why the Court concludes that the quality of this evidence is not such that thereupon one can establish without reasonable doubt a reliable ground for the identification of the accused. Therefore, from the statements by the aggrieved party, Jasmin Bahto, there arise obvious contradictions, which, when tied to the fact that the aggrieved party, at night and on a scarcely lit place, briefly saw a person whom he sees for the first time in his life, this being

33

a person without any particular features in his appearance or any specific thing about him which would render him memorable, that his testimony is not corroborated by the testimony of any other witness or material documentation, this witness cannot be given full credence and it cannot be accepted that he is 100% certain that the accused Saudin Duvnjak was the person who committed the aggravated robbery against him. With regard to the testimony of Jasmin Bahto, the Court is satisfied that it does not suffice that a witness testifies truthfully, but the key issue is how reliable the testimony is, which the Court was not convinced of beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses Mehmed Skomorac and Derviš Džerahović, who testified for the defense at the main trial on 21 January 2009, pointed out that at the material time the accused Saudin Duvnjak could not have been at the place where the motor vehicle Audi Q7 was misappropriated, as he was at the Maredo Club in Zenica, where he worked as a bouncer, as part of the Oscar protection agency. Further, the defense counsel for the second accused tendered into evidence the work attendance sheet for January-December 2007 on the work attendance of the accused Saudin Duvnjak, which shows that the accused was actually at the Maredo Club in Zenica at the material time. It is obvious that these witnesses are close friends of the accused, their testimonies are not clear, specific and precise, and a work attendance sheet is merely an internal document which is not submitted to anyone, which contains no date, no signature or stamp. However, the Court did not find it necessary to analyze these exhibits in detail in the Verdict, given that previously mentioned and evaluated exhibits were sufficient to cast serious doubt onto the averments in the Indictment. Given that in the factual description of the above Indictment the Prosecutor’s Office did not charge the accused Glavinić with the independent act of commission of the criminal offense of aggravated robbery, and the Court is satisfied that the organized criminal group whose members the accused allegedly were, was not proven as such by the Prosecution, the accused Saudin Glavinić cannot be found guilty of this criminal offense. Given all of the above mentioned, the Panel concluded that the evidence presented by the Prosecution, in terms of their quality, do not have sufficient persuasive power that the accused Suad Glavinić and Saudin Duvnjak committed the criminal acts they are charged with under the Indictment. Therefore, according to the principle In Dubio Pro Reo applied, that is, the rule pertaining to the Court being able to deem a fact established based on the evaluation of evidence only after being persuaded at the main trial of its existence and when no longer in doubt about it. Thereby the facts In Peius (to the detriment) of the accused must be established with certainty, that is, must be proven, and, if this is not achieved, it is deemed that they do not exist; and the facts that are In Favorem (in favor) of the accused must be deemed as existent even when they are established with probability (meaning, not with certainty). Abiding by the quoted legal principle, due to lack of evidence, applying Article 284(c), in conjunction with Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, the Court has rendered acquitting verdict.

34

35

6. Decision on Criminal Proceedings Costs and Claim under Property Law Pursuant to Article 198(3) of the CPC BiH, on 4 December 2008 the aggrieved party Jasmin Bahto said at the main trial he wanted to pursue a claim under property law, that is, he asked for compensation of the damage upon personal belongings which were in his misappropriated vehicle, the Court instructed him of his right to pursue his claim under property law in a civil action. Pursuant to Article 189(1) of the CPC BiH, given that the Court has rendered an acquitting verdict, the costs of the criminal proceedings, and the necessary expenditures of the accused and the necessary expenditures and remuneration of defense attorney shall be paid from budget appropriations. Note-taker PRESIDING JUDGE JUDGE Denis Podžić Vesna Jesenković Signature Affixed Signature Affixed LEGAL REMEDY: This Verdict is subject to appeal before the Appellate Division of the Court of BiH within 15 days from the date when the copy of the Verdict was received.