The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1] based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly conducts analyses of developments across the Middle East, the Balkans and global affairs. As part of its regular activities, IFIMES monitors reforms in the judiciary and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the final verdict against the former President of the Republika Srpska entity, Milorad Dodik (SNSD). From the comprehensive analysis “Bosnia and Herzegovina 2025: Dodik’s ongoing push for secession and the transformation of Republika Srpska into a ‘South Ossetia’”, we present the key findings and most compelling insights.
Milorad Dodik (SNSD), the former President of Republika Srpska, an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in lobbying efforts[2] in the United States to secure support from political and lobbying circles connected to the Trump administration, as part of his long-term plan to separate Republika Srpska from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
According to IFIMES findings, Dodik’s strategy appears to be conceived as a multi-phase process aimed at turning Republika Srpska into a so-called “South Ossetia” of the Balkans – a quasi-state entity under the direct or indirect influence of Russia, encompassing political, intelligence and potentially military dimensions. The final phase of this plan envisages the establishment of Russian military bases within Republika Srpska. Such a scenario would have far-reaching implications for regional stability, further straining the already fragile relations within Bosnia and Herzegovina and seriously undermining the security interests of the United States and the EU in Southeast Europe.
IFIMES experts warn that these activities pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States and the NATO Alliance. In this context, the international community – particularly transatlantic partners – should consider an urgent and coordinated response to prevent regional destabilisation, including diplomatic pressure, increased military and intelligence engagement, and the introduction of sanctions mechanisms.
Milorad Dodik’s lobbying efforts in the United States extend beyond political influence. IFIMES cautions about potential corruption risks associated with these activities, including suspicious financial transactions, the involvement of intermediaries linked to interest groups previously investigated by US authorities, and possible attempts to exert covert influence over the US administration. Such actions could trigger new investigations in Washington, raising suspicions of breaches of international sanctions and illegal forms of political lobbying.
In light of these circumstances, IFIMES recommends continuous monitoring of developments, conducting risk assessments concerning transatlantic security interests, and informing relevant international institutions to ensure a timely response to potentially destabilising scenarios in Southeast Europe.
The system for verifying the assets and integrity of members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) of Bosnia and Herzegovina remains one of the key issues attracting the attention of both the domestic and international public. As a central pillar of the judicial system, this institution plays a crucial role in safeguarding the credibility, independence and professional integrity of the judiciary. However, the current implementation of the verification mechanism reveals significant shortcomings, undermining public confidence and the trust of international partners.
IFIMES emphasises that members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) should be held to the same asset and integrity verification standards as judges and prosecutors. The European Union, in its reports and recommendations, has clearly underlined that any privileges or exemptions within the judiciary seriously jeopardise the principles of equality and accountability.
The asset verification system must be operational and independent, rather than serving as a mere formality. The department responsible for asset verification should be equipped with adequate human, technical and institutional capacities, including access to all relevant records and databases. Only regular, comprehensive checks with consistent sanctions for violations can guarantee genuine accountability and uphold the professional integrity of HJPC members.
IFIMES underscores that transparency is essential for building and maintaining public trust. The public disclosure of asset declarations and verification reports must be mandated by law and cannot be left to the discretion of individuals. While the protection of privacy and the security of personal data must be ensured, these safeguards should not be misused to evade accountability or conceal a lack of transparency. Striking a balance between privacy and the public’s right to access information about officials’ assets is key to strengthening citizens’ trust in institutions and the rule of law.
The practical implementation of the asset verification system has exposed considerable shortcomings. Legislative amendments introduced following consultations with the Venice Commission have weakened the system’s effectiveness, particularly in terms of access to additional information and the engagement of external experts. The absence of publicly available data on verified declarations and imposed sanctions further compromises the credibility of the process, creating a perception of selective application and political influence.
IFIMES particularly warns of the existing political pressures disguised as “internal regulation” of the judiciary. The asset verification mechanism must not be misused for selective accountability or political purposes, but should be used exclusively to reinforce the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
IFIMES draws particular attention to the disputed appointment of Ivana Zovko-Planinić as Director of the Secretariat of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC). She previously served as adviser to Dragan Čović (HDZBiH), member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and, until recently, as Chief of Cabinet to the Minister of Justice, Davor Bunoza (HDZBiH). Željko Bogut (linked to HDZBiH), Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, took part in the recruitment process, while Minister Bunoza and HJPC member Davor Martinović, a lawyer from Mostar and founder of the law firm “Martinović & Partners”[3], played an active role in the appointment. Martinović, who is closely linked to HDZBiH circles, was nominated for HJPC membership by the Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The appointment process was conducted without professional or merit-based criteria, leaving the appointee as the only candidate. Lawyer Davor Martinović is in a clear conflict of interest, since his law firm “Martinović & Partners” represents numerous clients in court proceedings before judges and prosecutors whose appointments he himself participated in. This case further illustrates the party dominance of HDZBiH within judicial structures, in direct contradiction to the recommendations and standards of the EU and the Venice Commission.
Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina has raised concerns about potential bias and conflict of interest[4] surrounding the appointment of Ivana Zovko-Planinić as Director of the HJPC Secretariat.
IFIMES considers it essential to review the disputed and unlawful appointment of the HJPC Secretariat Director and to initiate a new, transparent and merit-based procedure that will ensure the professionalism, independence and impartiality of the institution.
The efficiency, transparency and consistent application of the asset and integrity verification system for members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) have yet to be achieved. Political interference and institutional shortcomings continue to compromise the system’s core purpose and erode the credibility of judicial reforms.
The International Institute IFIMES recommends the following:
The full implementation of the asset and integrity verification system—free from exceptions and political influence—constitutes a key test of the credibility of judicial reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only a transparent, accountable and independent system can secure public trust and the stability of the rule of law.
The criminal case brought against Sarajevo-based lawyer Vasvija Vidović has sparked strong reactions from both domestic and international audiences and raised important questions about professional standards and the consistent application of the law in judicial proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At 15:05 on 18 December 2023, officers of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) deprived of liberty Ranko Debevec, President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the arrest, no search was conducted as required by law, and Debevec was allowed to bring personal belongings into SIPA premises, including three mobile phones. In the first-instance judgment against lawyer Vasvija Vidović, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina justified this omission by citing “the position and reputation of the President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina” – an explanation which IFIMES views as a purely formal justification that undermines the principle of equality before the law.
Two hours after Debevec’s arrest, lawyer Vasvija Vidović entered the premises of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) in her capacity as Debevec’s defence counsel. She immediately established that the officers had neither a verbal nor a written order for the seizure of items from Debevec, nor a warrant to search him. During the arrest, Debevec surreptitiously slipped one of the mobile phones he had with him into lawyer Vidović’s bag without her knowledge. Vidović refused to surrender the phone to SIPA officers, stating that, as a lawyer, she was bound by the duty of attorney–client confidentiality and that no order for the seizure of the item existed at that time. The order was issued only at 23:20 – several hours after Vidović herself had been deprived of liberty.
The International Institute IFIMES points out that the criminal proceedings against lawyer Vasvija Vidović were conducted without the presentation of key evidence – the mobile phone and its contents – which constituted the central element of the case. Vidović and her defence team were denied the opportunity to respond to the evidence on which her conviction was based. Paradoxically, the verdict against Vidović was delivered before an indictment had even been filed against Ranko Debevec.
The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina initially qualified the alleged offence as “aiding an offender after the commission of a criminal offence,” which, under the law, cannot be committed by a lawyer, since defence counsel cannot be punished for providing legal assistance to a client. It was only after her release from custody that the Prosecutor’s Office amended the legal qualification of the offence, further highlighting the arbitrariness of the proceedings.
International standards, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stipulate that a lawyer is not obliged to hand over a client’s belongings even when a court order exists. This principle derives from the prohibition of self-incrimination, which extends from the suspect or accused to their defence counsel. Accordingly, defence counsels are also not obliged to testify against their clients. Therefore, the actions of lawyer Vasvija Vidović cannot be deemed unlawful.
Given the absence of effective mechanisms for protecting the rights of lawyers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the case was reported to international legal organisations in Germany and Austria. The German Bar Association (DAV), representing more than 60,000 members, publicly came to the defence of lawyer Vasvija Vidović, calling on the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to end the persecution and harassment, and stressing that Vidović “acted within the scope of her professional duties.”
The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), representing over one million European lawyers, also expressed its support for Vidović. The CCBE sent two official letters[5] to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, drawing attention to the political background of the case and calling for an immediate end to the persecution.
IFIMES recalls that, over the course of her long career, lawyer Vasvija Vidović has made a significant contribution to establishing the facts about some of the gravest war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Ahmići and Srebrenica cases, for which she has received the highest honours awarded by war victims’ associations.
Vidović was also the target of surveillance by certain intelligence services because of her role in documenting evidence of the involvement of Croatian forces in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE), which, according to available information, brought her into disfavour with the security and intelligence community.
Her professional integrity is further attested by a letter from former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Louise Arbour, who noted that “the personal efforts of Vasvija Vidović have made a significant contribution to the development of international humanitarian law and to lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia.”
The International Institute IFIMES considers that the case of lawyer Vasvija Vidović extends far beyond an individual dispute, serving as a clear indicator of the systemic weaknesses affecting the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s judiciary. The case raises serious concerns about legal certainty, the misuse of procedural powers and the protection of lawyers’ rights as essential pillars of the judicial system and of the constitutionally guaranteed right to defence. When such proceedings are initiated against one of the country’s most respected and experienced lawyers, a fundamental question arises: what, then, can ordinary citizens expect from the judicial system of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
The International Institute IFIMES makes the following recommendations:
In addition to the institutions themselves, the International Institute IFIMES considers that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina – regardless of their composition – cannot remain indifferent to the flagrant violations of rights and the law in the country, particularly those concerning attacks on the constitutional order and the protection of the rights of parties in legal proceedings. The case of lawyer Vasvija Vidović also represents a test for the international mechanisms in Bosnia and Herzegovina that oversee and monitor the judicial system, as their prompt and unequivocal response to such violations will be crucial in preventing similar cases in the future. IFIMES stresses that the Vidović case could have been avoided had the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina been respected and consistently enforced.
The case of lawyer Vasvija Vidović stands as a symbol of the struggle for the professional independence of lawyers and for the genuine rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The manner in which institutions and international oversight mechanisms respond will serve as an important indicator of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s readiness to align itself with European legal standards and values.
Ljubljana/Brussels/Washington, 22 October 2025
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal "European Perspectives." Available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en
[2] US FARA Register. Available at: https://efile.fara.gov/ords/fara/f?p=2000:57
[3] Attorneys at Law “Martinović and partners”, Mostar. Available at: https://www.martinovic-partneri.ba/
[4] Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina: Conflict of interest in the appointment of the HJPC Secretariat Director – the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice evaluated the Minister’s Chief of Cabinet. Available at: https://ti-bih.org/sukob-interesa-pri-izboru-direktorice-sekretarijata-vstv-a-sekretar-ministarstva-pravde-ocjenjivao-seficu-kabineta-ministra/
[5] CCBE - Sentencing and judicial harassment of lawyer Vasvija Vidović. Available at: https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/HUMAN_RIGHTS_LETTERS/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_-_Bosnie-Herzegovine/2025/EN_HRL_20250313_Bosnia-and-Herzegovina_Sentencing-and-judicial-harassment-of-lawyer-Vasvija-Vidovi.pdf
[6] Case of Nezirić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application no. 4088/21). Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-237816%22]}
