E moji profesionalci!

 

 

 

Danas, 07.02.2012. godine Evropski sud za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu objavio je, između ostalih, dvije presude koje se odnose na Bosnu i Hercegovinu.

 

 

[IMG]http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u196/Sion_Legacy/SudijeEvropskogsudazaljudskaprava.jpg[/IMG]

Fotografija sudija Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu (izvor: http://multimedia.echr.coe.int/en/collection/detail/29/juges-de-la-cour– )

 

Prva presuda je u predmetu Al Husin protiv Bosne i Hercegovine.

Druga presuda je u predmetu Al Hamdani protiv Bosne i Hercegovine.

Sadržaj obe presude možete vidjeti na linku http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=86124183&skin=hudoc-en&action=request .

 

Obe navedene presude donijete su tokom vijećanja zatvorenog za javnost 17. januara 2012. godine. U oba predmeta presuđivale su sljedeće sudije:

Lech Garlicki, predsjednik
Päivi Hirvelä, sudija
Ledi Bianku, sudija
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, sudija
Nebojša Vučinić, sudija
Vincent A. De Gaetano, sudija
Ljiljana Mijović, sudija 
i  Lawrence Early, registrar.

U predmetu Al Husin protiv Bosne i Hercegovine zapravo je riječ o Imadu Al Husinu, bosanskohercegovačkoj javnosti poznatijem kao Ebu Hamza.

 

[IMG]http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u196/Sion_Legacy/Abu-Hamza.jpg[/IMG]

Imad Al Husin poznatiji kao Ebu Hamza

[IMG]http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u196/Sion_Legacy/Imigracionicentar.jpg[/IMG]

Fotografija Imada Al Husina zatočenog u Imigracionom centru u Lukavici, Istočno Sarajevo. Centar je smješten u ulici Draže Mihajlovića.

 

 

Presuda u predmetu Al Husin protiv Bosne i Hercegovine glasi (slobodan prijevod):

 

 

IZ TIH (ranije navedenih, op.aut.) RAZLOGA, SUD

 

1.     Jednoglasno proglašava da je prigovor (prigovor podnosioca tužbe Imada Al Husina, op.aut.) koji se odnosi na članove (Konvencije, op.aut.) 3, 5 §§ 1 i 4 i 8 dopušten, te da je ostatak prigovora nedopušten;

 

2.     Drži sa šest (6) glasova naprema jedan (1) da bi došlo do kršenja Člana 3. Konvencije u slučaju aplikantove (Imada Al Husina, op.aut.) deportacije u Siriju u sadašnjim okolnostima;

 

 

3.     Drži sa šest (6) glasova naprema jedan (1) da se desilo kršenje Člana 5 § 1 Konvencije u vezi s periodom aplikantovog (Imada Al Husina, op.aut.) pritvora od 06. oktobra 2008. do 31. januara 2011.;

 

4.     Jednoglasno drži da nije bilo kršenja Člana 5 § 1 Konvencije u vezi s periodom aplikantovog (Imada Al Husina, op.aut.) pritvora od 01. februara 2011.;

 

5.      Drži sa šest (6) glasova naprema jedan (1) da ne postoji potreba za odvojeno ispitivanje pritužbi po članovima 5 § 4 i 8 Konvencije;

 

6.      Drži sa šest (6) glasova naprema jedan (1)

 

(a) da će tužena Država aplikantu (Imad Al Husin, op.aut.) platiti, i to u roku od tri mjeseca od datuma postanka presude konačnom u skladu s Članom 44 § 2 Konvencije, tri (3) hiljade eura (EUR) plus svi porezi koji bi mogli biti zaračunati na ime nematerijalne štete. Ovaj iznos treba pretvoriti u konvertibilne marke po kursu važećem na dan namirenja štete;

(b) da će se od isteka gore navedena tri mjeseca do namirenja štete zaračunavati jednostavna kamata na gore navedeni iznos i to po stopi jednakoj najnižoj kreditnoj stopi Evropske centralne banke tokom perioda neizmirenja štete plus uvećanje za tri (3) postotna boda;

 

        7. Jednoglasno odbija ostatak prigovora (prigovor podnosioca tužbe Imada Al Husina, op.aut.) za pravičnu naknadu.

 

(Tekst presude na engleskom jeziku možete vidjeti na http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=10&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=86124114&skin=hudoc-en )

 

 

 

Šta ovo zapravo znači?

 

Veoma šturi medijski izvještaji koje sam pogledala (a nisam se nešto posebno trudila da ih pročitam što više nego sam odmah otišla na zvanični web portal Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu) tvrde, pozivajući se na izjavu pokćerke Imada Al Husina Nudžejme Softić, da je Al Husin od stupanja na snagu danas objavljene presude slobodan čovjek.

Međutim…

Međutim, nažalost…

 

Analizom prevoda presude jasno je sljedeće:

 

– Imad Al Husin, poznatiji kao Ebu Hamza, ne može biti deportovan u zemlju porijekla, Siriju, sve dok u toj zemlji vladaju uslovi presudom okarakterisani kao ‘sadašnje okolnosti’. Međutim, bosanskohercegovački zakon kojim se uređuje pitanje deportacije predviđa da ista, osim u zemlju porijekla, može biti provedena i u tzv. treću zemlju. Treća zemlja je zapravo ona koja bi Imada Al Husina primila na svoje tlo. Moja je neka procjena da će teško doći do deportacije Al Husina u tzv. treću zemlju.

 

– Evropski sud za ljudska prava utvrdio je da se desilo kršenje Člana 5 § 1 Konvencije u vezi s Al Husinovim boravkom u pritvoru Imigracionog centra u Lukavici, Istočno Sarajevo, ali samo u periodu od 06. oktobra 2008. do 31. januara 2011. Istovremeno, utvrđeno je da Al Husinovim boravkom u pritvoru Imigracionog centra od 01. februala 2011. do danas nije prekršen Član 5 § 1 Konvencije. To zapravo znači da Evropski sud u Strasbourgu aktuelni, evo današnji, Al Husinov boravak u pritvoru Imigracionog centra smatra zakonitim. Koliko poznajem pravo zakonitim smatra i buduće Al Husinovo držanje u pritvoru za vrijeme trajanja postupka deportacije, a taj postupak, u njegovom slučaju, traje.

 

 

Šta me razljutilo?

 

Razljutilo me što novinari ove zemlje nisu ni toliko profesionalci u svome poslu pa da zatraže od nekoga u svojoj redakciji, ako već ne poznaju sami engleski jezik, da im prevede presudu u predmetu Al Husin protiv Bosne i Hercegovine.

 

Razljutilo me što vjerovatno i nisu otišli na zvanični web site Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu da provjere šta u presudi piše (što je obaveza za svakog novinara pa i novinarčića), nego su izvještavanje zasnovali na izjavama tumača koji pojma nemaju o čemu govore. Kako će Al Husinova pokćerka, Nudžejma Softić, prekrasna djevojka koja svoga oca mnogo voli, znati pravu istinu kada joj je očev advokat Osman Mulahalilović vjerovatno prenio ono isto što je rekao i u izjavi "Dnevnom Avazu": "Odluka je objavljena u 10.15, još uvijek nemamo zvaničan prijevod, ali mogu potvrditi da je po ovoj presudi BiH prekršila Evropsku konvenciju o ljudskim pravima kada je u pitanju Abu Hamza, kaže Mulahalilović. U presudi stoji da Abu Hamza ne može biti izručen Siriji, a utvrđeno je da je namjerom da ga izruči BiH prekršila član 3. Konvencije kojim se ‘zabranjuje tortura’. Naša zemlja prekršila je i član. 5, jer je prema presudi Abu Hamza od 1. februara 2011. godine u Imigracionom centru držan nelegalno, odnosno on je ‘protupravno lišen slobode’, samim tim ugroženo je i ‘njegovo pravo na slobodu’. Za očekivati je da nakon ove presude Abu Hamza bude pušten iz Imigracionog centra u Lukavici u kojem se nalazi od oktobra 2008. godine zbog procjene da predstavlja sigurnosnu prijetnju BiH." (izvor: http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/vijesti/iz-minute-u-minutu/78933-odluka-evropskog-suda-za-ljudska-prava-abu-hamza-mora-biti-pusten-na-slobodu.html  )

 

Razljutilo me što će se manja Al Husinova djeca, posebno najmlađi sin, supruga koja je bila jako bolesna (a možda je još uvijek) obradovati da bi, veoma skoro, stiglo razočarenje. Za to krivicu snosi i Al Husinov neprofesionalni advokat, kao i neprofesionalni novinari.

 

Razljutio me, na koncu, posebno me razljutilo izdvojeno mišljenje sudije Evropskog suda za ljudska prava Ljiljane Mijović u predmetu Al Husin protiv Bosne i Hercegovine. Niti imam vremena, niti imam živaca da ovo izdvojeno mišljenje prevodim, pa ga pejstam u originalu. Btw., upravo je glas sudije Ljiljane Mijović bio onaj jedini "šest (6) glasova naprema jedan (1)".

 

 

 

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MIJOVIĆ

1.  General remarks

In the present case which concerns the applicant’s detention at the Immigration Centre, the majority of judges has found that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicant’s deportation to Syria; that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the period of the applicant’s detention from 6 October 2008 to 31 January 2011; and that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 5 § 4 and 8 of the Convention. To my regret, my opinion differs significantly from the conclusion reached by the majority.

While I agree with the Chamber that the complaints concerning Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 4 and 8 are admissible, I am of the opposite opinion as regards the majority’s decision that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicant’s deportation and that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the period of the applicant’s detention from 6 October 2008 to 31 January 2011.

Additionally, and contrary to the Chamber’s decision, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

My general remarks are related to the fact that the Chamber has neglected both the historical background to the presence of the paramilitary armed forces and the very particular post-war circumstances in which Bosnia and Herzegovina finds itself. In so doing, the Chamber decided to apply the Court’s case-law strictly, even rigidly, paying no attention to the fact that the applicant in this case was not an ordinary illegal immigrant/crime suspect, but a person whose legal situation had to be seen in a broader context, quite different from that of the applicants in the cases relied on by the Chamber to reach its conclusion in the instant case. This case, in my opinion, should have been dealt with by the Grand Chamber because it is not only this applicant’s case, but gives rise to the more general problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s inability to deal with the consequences of the presence of paramilitary armed forces on its territory after the war. What has not been even mentioned in the judgment is the fact that the State authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina are faced with about 20,000 potential cases of this kind11.

2.  Factual background

The facts of the case show that the applicant was a member of El Mujahedin, the ARBH unit as described in the judgment. As correctly pointed out in the judgment, Article III of Annex 1A to that Agreement called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces, irrespective of whether they were legally and militarily subordinated to any of the local forces. In view of that, on 14 December 1995 the ARBH disbanded El Mujahedin and ordered its foreign members to leave the country by 10 January 1996. The applicant decided not to do so. He stayed in the country and acted as leader of a group of foreign mujahedin and their supporters. In that self-proclaimed capacity he detained two civilians, which led to his conviction for false imprisonment in May 2000 and a suspended prison sentence.

In the meantime, the Bosnia and Herzegovina administrative authorities held that the applicant had acquired citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina by means of fraudulent conduct, false information and concealment of relevant facts. On 5 April 2007 the State Court and on 4 October 2008 the Constitutional Court upheld that decision.

In May 2007 the Aliens Service held, on the basis of confidential intelligence reports, that the applicant was a threat to national security. He was granted a period for voluntary departure of fifteen days.

In August 2007 the Asylum Service refused the applicant’s asylum claim and granted the applicant a fifteen-day period for voluntary departure, based on the fact that the applicant did not face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment given that he had never been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (unlike Muhammad Zammar mentioned in the judgment). It further held that it had not been shown that he would be ill-treated solely because he had fought with the foreign mujahedin in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In January 2008 the State Court upheld that decision. Officially and legally, from that moment on, the applicant became an unlawful resident.

On 6 October 2008 the Aliens Service placed the applicant in an immigration centre on security grounds, pursuant to section 99(2)(b) of the Aliens Act 2008. That decision was later upheld by the State Court and the Constitutional Court. The initial detention period was extended each month until February 2011. All the extension orders were upheld by the State Court, some of them also by the Constitutional Court (constitutional appeals concerning the remaining orders are still pending).

Although the State Court emphasised that the indication of a period for voluntary departure should not be legally confused with a deportation order and that the issue of whether the applicant’s departure would be contrary to the Convention should more appropriately be examined within the context of deportation proceedings, the fact remains that the applicant in accordance with Article III of Annex 1A was ordered to leave the country a long time before that decision, precisely by 10 January 1996. However, it would appear that a constitutional appeal against the State Court’s decision is still pending, which renders this part of the applicant’s complaint premature.

Further to the Constitutional Court’s decision on 17 November 2008 the State Court assessed the national security evidence and upheld the Ministry of Security’s decision, relying on the applicant’s conviction of May 2000, his public threats against the State authorities, his standing in the mujahedin community which allowed him to issue a binding ruling (fatwa), his lectures at a mosque in a Sarajevo suburb, advocating the Saudi-inspired Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam and his attempts to obtain ammunition illegally. In June 2009 the Aliens Service granted the applicant another period of fifteen days for his voluntary departure. On 27 July 2009 the Ministry of Security upheld that decision. On 23 December 2009, after having assessed the national security evidence, the State Court upheld that decision. It relied, among other things, on the fact that the applicant’s name appeared on a list of international criminals maintained by the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL). On 1 July 2010 another bench of the same court upheld that decision. It would appear that the applicant has lodged a constitutional appeal in that regard which is still pending. Accordingly, once again, in my opinion this part of the applicant’s complaint is premature.

Summarising these facts, it is clear that the applicant was previously ordered to leave the country; he was convicted for false imprisonment of civilians; he was proved to have been engaged in fraudulent conduct regarding his forged citizenship and, finally, as established by the domestic courts, he posed a serious threat to national security and public order. Furthermore, it is accepted, including by the Chamber, that none of the domestic authorities’ decisions was arbitrary, which significantly distinguishes this case from the Chahal case on which the Chamber relied in its judgment.

3.  Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

As an unlawful resident, the applicant claimed asylum. The claim was rejected by the domestic authorities because the applicant, in the Government’s view, had failed to demonstrate that the risk to him, if deported to Syria, was real. In their opinion, the assessment made at the domestic level had been adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials as well as by materials originating from a variety of reliable and objective sources.

Notwithstanding that assessment, the Chamber considered that the domestic authorities had not sufficiently taken into account the nature of the mujahedin movement to which the applicant undoubtedly belonged. Having regard to Syria’s human rights record and the fact that the situation in Syria has deteriorated since the onset of political protest and civil unrest in March 2011, the Chamber considered that there was a real risk that the applicant, if deported to Syria, would be subjected to ill-treatment. Therefore, the Chamber found that the applicant’s deportation to Syria would violate Article 3.

As correctly pointed out in the judgment, the right to asylum is not contained in either the Convention or its Protocols (Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007). An expulsion may, however, give rise to an issue under Article 3, and engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if expelled, faces a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment. The assessment of the existence of a real risk must be rigorous (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 96). As a rule, it is for applicants to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, they would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, § 167, 26 July 2005).

Turning to the facts of the case, it is clear that the applicant failed to prove that he was a member of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and that he would be perceived as such by the Syrian authorities. On the contrary, it had been proved that the applicant had gone to Syria in 1993, stayed there for one month and obtained a new Syrian passport. The domestic courts therefore upheld the Asylum Service’s decisions not to grant the applicant asylum, which decisions, in my understanding, were correct and justified. Under the domestic legislation, a claim for asylum and an application for judicial review of a refusal of such a claim have a suspensive effect on the enforcement of a deportation order. It is clear from the facts of the case that the Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the applicant’s appeal. That, obviously, did not prevent the Chamber from finding a violation of Article 3.

One of the arguments that the Chamber relied on in doing so was the fact that the political crisis in Syria has recently deteriorated. In my view, that is of no relevance since the applicant has never claimed refugee status on humanitarian grounds. I strongly believe that the European Court’s role is not to increase the number of illegal immigrants or unlawful citizens across Europe, but to reiterate that as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, including those arising from the Convention, a Contracting State has the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens, as established by the Court’s case-law. (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII). I consider it wrong to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the circumstances of the instant case.

4.  Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant, contesting the lawfulness of his detention, relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

My personal conviction is that this complaint should have been dealt with under Article 5 § 1 (c), whereas the Chamber decided to deal with it under Article 5 § 1 (f).

While it is true that Article 5 enshrines the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference by the State with his or her right to liberty, sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which persons may be deprived of their liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds. One of the exceptions, contained in sub-paragraph (c), permits the State to control the liberty of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. I find this to be a basis for the applicant’s arrest and the initial period of his detention. The first period of the applicant’s detention (lasting from 6 October 2008 until 31 January 2011) might not have been justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, but the fact is that he was arrested not in order to face deportation but on suspicion of posing a threat to national security. It was only later that the deportation order was issued (1 February 2011). I maintain my view that the initial period of his detention should have been dealt with under Article 5 § 1 (c).

As emphasised in paragraph 61 of the judgment, where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: any deprivation of liberty should, in addition, be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness – and the notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and contrary to the Convention (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 67, 29 January 2008). The applicant was arrested in compliance with the domestic law, pursuant to which an alien must be detained if it has been established that he or she constitutes a threat to national security (see paragraph 36 of the judgment). The applicant’s claims were thoroughly examined before the domestic courts. Accordingly, it cannot be said that his detention was arbitrary (contrast the position in Chahal, where the applicant’s detention was decided not by a court, but by the Advisory Board).

In its judgment, the majority reiterated that sub-paragraph (c) does not permit a policy of general prevention directed against a person or a category of persons who are perceived by the authorities, rightly or wrongly, as being dangerous or having propensity to unlawful acts. I agree, except for the fact that in this case the arrest was not a measure of general prevention, but a very individual measure directed at someone who was previously convicted and, as established by the domestic courts, who posed a threat to national security and was wanted by INTERPOL.

Turning to the Court’s case-law principles, detention to prevent a person from committing an offence must, in addition, be “effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority” (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), § 14). Sub-paragraph (c) thus permits deprivation of liberty only in connection with criminal proceedings (see Ciulla, § 38). Since the domestic authorities had not brought criminal proceedings against the applicant, the application of sub-paragraph (c) would necessarily lead to finding a violation of Article 5 § 1, which I would have supported if the Chamber had decided to apply Article 5 § 1 (c).

5.  Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention

The applicant complains that his expulsion would violate his right to respect for family life, as protected by Article 8 of the Convention.

The Chamber decided that, since it found that the applicant’s deportation to Syria would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention it was not necessary to decide the hypothetical question whether, in the event of expulsion to Syria, there would also be a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. I am of the opposite opinion. While I believe that the applicant’s deportation to Syria would not constitute a violation of Article 3, I am of the opinion that there would be a violation of Article 8 in the event of the applicant’s deportation to Syria, bearing in mind the decision not only to expel the applicant but to prohibit his re-entry for five years. As mentioned in the factual background to the case, the applicant is married to a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and they are together bringing up six children. Maintaining contact with his family, given the crisis in Syria, would, in my opinion, be impossible. Therefore, I voted against the Chamber’s decision not to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

1.  While the respondent State was called “the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina” during the 1992-95 war, the name “Bosnia and Herzegovina” is nevertheless also used in this judgment when referring to that period.

2.  Bosnian Muslims are also known as Bosniacs. The term “Bosniacs” should, however, not be confused with the term “Bosnians”, which is used to denote BH citizens irrespective of their ethnic origin.

3.  The ARBH forces, mostly made up of the Bosnian Muslim population, were loyal to the central authorities of BH.

4.  On 13 March 2002 the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation was placed on the list of entities associated with al-Qaeda maintained by the United Nations.

5.  On 21 November 2002 the Benevolence International and Bosanska idealna futura, its office in BH, were placed on the list of entities associated with al-Qaeda maintained by the United Nations. On 10 February 2003 Enaam M. Arnaout, its director, was convicted in the United States after he pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy. In the plea agreement, he admitted that for a decade the Benevolence International Foundation had been defrauding donors by leading them to believe that donations were being used for strictly peaceful, humanitarian purposes, while some of that money was being diverted to mujahedin in BH.

6.  The HVO forces were mostly made up of the local Croatian population. They were loyal to the authorities of neighbouring Croatia (see the ICTY judgments in Blaškić, IT-95-14-T, §§ 95-123, 3 March 2000, and IT-95-14-A, §§ 167-78, 29 July 2004).

7.  According to International Crisis Group, the Salafiyya began as a movement of modernist reform in the Middle East in the late nineteenth century. Its founders, the Persian Shiite Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897) and the Egyptian Sunni Mohammed Abduh (1849-1905), were concerned above all to enable the Muslim world to rise to the challenge of Western power. This reformist combination of selective “back to basics” fundamentalism and selective modernism (accepting Western science and political ideas, notably liberal democracy and constitutional government) went into eclipse following the First World War. In the political turmoil in the Middle East following the destruction of the Ottoman empire, the abolition of the Caliphate, the expansion of Jewish settlement in Palestine and the establishment of British and French protectorates (Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Transjordan), the Salafiyya movement evolved in a markedly anti-Western and conservative direction under the guidance of Rashid Rida (1865-1935). This involved an explicit rapprochement from the late 1920s onwards between the Salafiyya movement and the Wahhabi doctrines championed by the triumphant Al-Saud dynasty in Arabia (see International Crisis Group’s report Understanding Islamism of 2 March 2005, p. 9).

8.  BH consists of two Entities (the Federation of BH and the Republika Srpska) and the Brčko District.

9.  All references to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or its population, shall be understood to be in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

10.  In 2000 he was arrested in Yemen; in 2002 he was released as part of a Yemeni jihadist rehabilitation programme.

 

 

  

   

 Najviše me razljutilo to što čak ni Evropski sud za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu nije ulazio u meritum stvari, onu suštinu.

 A šta je suština?

ZAŠTO JE, KOJE P.M., IMAD AL HUSIN PROGLAŠEN PRIJETNJOM PO NACIONALNU SIGURNOST BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE?

O tome zašto je ‘prijetnja’, a prema mojim nalazima, pisala sam ovdje http://vasionka.blogger.ba/arhiva/2011/03/09/2710226 .

vasionka
vasionka

...loyal...liar, big time...brutal...again brutal...love all kids, especially those with autistic disorder...love music, that mathematics of all the worlds...again loooooooove music...read, read and read even more...love to write...loooove to write poems&songs...tales...more tales...manicure nails, no, no, never...love to seek, seek big time...explore...love God...again love God, that greatest freak of all the times... odd fellow...love major guy in the underworld...love equinox...indeed love equinox...mmmmmmm, love blood, that knowledge thing...don't know how to love...love myself mostly and ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...love freaks...again love freaks...all freaks...hate to share bed with anyone but one...love one grandmother and her son...her son...her dead son...love men...mmmmmmmm, love men with attitude...love men with attitude again...love gracefully women...mmmmmm, muses...adore troubadour...love night...again love night...love light...hate order...hate paper money...love symbols...adore symbols...love frustration...love hard lesson...tatoo...mmmmmmmm, haaaaaard lesson...

Articles: 1278

11 0 komentara

  1. Ah, samo da znas koliko je mene domacih vijesti vec razljutilo. Jedni novinari nemaju pojma, a drugi prepisuju…zato za informisanje nasu stampu slabo i koristim.
    Predprosle godine, ono kad su ukinuli vize za EU, u svim novinama sam citao da se moze bez vize ici u Bugarsku, Rumuniju i na grcki dio Kipra.

  2. Upravo sam procitao izvornu informaciju i zaista je sramota koliko su neprofesionalno pristupili ovoj, itekako, veoma vaznoj informaci u vezi odluke suda. Dokaz da je nivo profesionalnosti BiH novinara daleko od tacke, osrednjeg, poznavanja tacnosti interpretacije informacija.

  3. Jasnistave, rak rana ovog našeg društva je neukost, lijenost i površnost. Rak rana!
    Kada se zna da se ne vlada suvereno u smislu poznavanja neke teme, pametuje se i zaključuje paušalno i prema intuiciji. Prva ja.
    Nije a priori problem u neukosti, ne može se sve znati. Problem je u lijenosti da se umiješamo u naš posao, ma koji on bio. U ovom konkretnom slučaju – ne provjerava se informacija na izvoru iste. Pa pobogu, to je temelj profesije, bez toga ničega nema. Onda uslijedi površnost, izostanak temeljitosti, jer kad se, npr., vidi dužina presude, mrsko mu čitati, de da uzmem izjavu od advokata, on će to protumačiti.

    Kosmopolite, hajde načiniti sitnu materijalnu (u činjenici) grešku tokom izvještavanja, ali načiniti materijalnu GREŠKETINU putem koje je suština informacije izokrenuta naopačke… Fakat ne kontam! Hajde da se radi o izvještavanju u vrijeme prije pojave Interneta, pa da si ti dobio informaciju da se nešto dešava, a žuriš da objaviš… pa treba poznavati jezik i nazvati Sud da profaksa presudu kako bi se provjerila izjava advokata.
    Ovo, ovo je dilentatizam! I, što je najgore, svi portali samo prepisuju jedan od drugog što kaže Jasanstav, niko se ne dosjeti da provjeri.

  4. Koliko znam – ti si novinarka 🙂
    Post je bio osvrt na vijest i prezentaciju iste u eteru pa u komentaru kažem da je površnost bolest – ko prodaje a ko kupuje ‘robu’ tj informaciju.

    7W – Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? What now?
    i
    3W – What? Why? When?

  5. Hehe, da, a studirala za psihologa. Zar to mlade novinare još uvijek uče? Nasmijala bih se, a ne mogu od muke (zbog toga što ih to još uvijek uče). Praksa kaže da svih sedam ne moraš/a često i ne možeš imati u jednom medijskom izvještaju. Recimo, ‘šta sada?’ je, u ovom konkretnom slučaju, nepozanica za bilo koga. Postupak ekstradicije traje. Kada se okonča, znaćemo. U slučaju, npr., izvještavanja o terorističkom napadu od 11. septembra, pošten novinar i dan danas nema odgovora na ključno “ko?”.

    Tekst nije bio osvrt na formu prezentacije vijesti. Prezentacija može biti u okvirima temeljno profesionalnog i sa (u konkretnom slučaju nemogućih) sedam odgovora i sa ta tri koja si navela. Tekst je osvrt na odašiljanje u eter vijesti koja je sušta suprotnost samoj sebi zbog materijalne greške što je izvrnula naopačke.

  6. Old school su znali šta treba a šta ne. Moja praksa istraživačkog novinarstva ‘podebljava’ svih 7W…sve u bojazni da ne gorim u nekoj vatri (nadam se ni blizu Dzehenemske!) il’ još gore u nekoj laži il'polulaži..makar me malo pecnula. Ipak stavljam svoje ime na dno teksta.

    Danas nas umreženo društvo cijedi tako – 11. septemabr je u mojoj prezentaciji vijesti’ samo jedan dan kada sam napokon Brutov nos nacrtala kako treba a bio je svega dva koraka od mene ili nešto manje od mog nosa…a činilo se tako daleko.

    🙂

    Iako je na FTV bilo 3W u cijelih nekoliko sekundi priloga…meni dosta.

  7. Nije to old school, to je reformacija;-)Što se džehenemske tiče, tu ništa, u tvome slučaju, sem Kur'ana časnog i suneta ne pomaže, podebljavala ne podebljavala sa svih sedam. Skužila sam šta si željela reći, ali ja sam oko ovih stvari vrlo doslovna i ozbiljna, jer smatram da je tako ispravno. Ima ih sijaset koji sa svih sedam podebljaju, pa ih ponovo relevantan sagovornik zloupotrijebi (bez svjesnosti novinara da je zlouporijebljen) ili upotrijebi (zajedno su u dosluhu da prezentiraju iskrivljenu ili ideološko-politički “propranu” informaciju).
    Istraživačko novinarstvo i dolazak do/prenošenje vijesti kroz medijski izvještaj različiti su pojmovi. Kod vijesti i izvještaja moraš biti aktuelan (princip na kojoj vijest i izvještaj počiva). Najčešće za podebljavanje sa svih sedam vremena nema.
    Što se kolega s “konkurentne” FTV tiče, nešto drugo, mimo 3W, zaslužuje seriju tekstova.

    Meni se Brutov nos tek sada čini izrazito daleko. Ukratko, ne skužih ništa.

  8. Otkud Kur'an i sunnet među vijestima? 🙂

    Termin vatra je korišten u identifikaciji svega što uznemirava jer Dzehenem nisam vidjela pa ne znam, ali mi eto fino zvuči 😉 za zastrašivanje a i stalno nešto ‘mašu’ tim kaoo neko prokletstvo.

    Ako je neki savjet od starije kolegice, uzimam zdravo za gotovo. Pionirski 🙂
    Tnx.

  9. Otud što etika na istom počiva, a i vijesti (tu podrazumijevam sve oblike izvještavanja uključujući i istraživačko novinarstvo) bi, tačnije prenošenje istih, morale počivati na etici.
    Sve na ovom svijetu je unutar sistema spojenih posuda.
    Novinari su ljudi. Uvodna pretpostavka je to da moraju biti etični. Ono što i u svjetovnom kontekstu podrazumijevamo pod etikom proisteklo je iz vjere. Ako je čovjek etičan, onda je etičan i u ulozi novinara. Zbog toga sam rekla da ni mene, a ni tebe džehenemske vatre ne može spasiti ništa do naše etike. Profesionalnih sedam W nikakvu ulogu tu ne moraju igrati, to je dokazivo na sijaset primjera, a ponudila sam ti nekoliko.

    Nije savjet, dijalog je, diskusija. Kvalitetna, moje je mišljenje. A nije ni ‘ako’, a ne znam ni da li sam starija.

    Nema na čemu. Hvala tebi.
    Pozdravljam te.

Leave a Reply