Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, Senad Hasanović

Court	Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Section II, Panel of the Appellate Division), Bosnia and Herzegovina
Case number	X-KZ-06/190
Decision title	Verdict (in Appeal)
Decision date	21 May 2007
Parties	Mirsad Bektašević Abdulkadir Cesur Bajro Ikanović Senad Hasanović
Other names	Senad Hasanović, a.k.a “Senći”
Categories	Terrorism
Keywords	Bosnia and Herzegovina, Europe, explosive substances, obstruction of an official person, possession of weapons, Terrorism
Links	Verdict (in Appeal)
Other countries involved	Afghanistan Denmark Iraq Sweden

Summary

Mirsad Bektašević, Abdulkadir Cesur, Bajro Ikanović, and Senad Hasanović were indicted in 2005 on charges of terrorism for their intended commission of terrorist acts in order to coerce the Bosnian government or other European governments to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the accused guilty with respect to both terrorism and the attempted obstruction of an official person. The sentences handed down ranged between 15 years 4 months and 6 months.

The Second Instance Court upheld the appeals of the accused in part, modifying the sentences imposed. The reason for this modification was the errors made by the First Instance Court in weighting and balancing the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the taking into consideration factors that pertained to the substantial analysis of the offence (and therefore should not have been considered in the sentencing phase). Accordingly, the Appellate Panel modified this judgement, sentencing Bektaševic to 8 years 4 months, Cesur to 6 years 6 months, Ikanović to 4 years and Hasanović to 6 months.

Procedural history

The indictment against Mirsad Bektaševic and Abdulkadir Cesur was filed on 6 April 2006. See also Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 'Confirmed Indictment for Terrorism', Press Release, 13 April 2006.

On 10 January 2007, the Trial Panel found Bektaševic and Cesur guilty of terrorism and attempted obstruction of an official person in the execution of official activity. Bajro Ikanovic was found guilty of terrorism and Senad Hasanovic was found guilty of illicit possession of weapons or explosive substances.

Legally relevant facts

According to the indictment confirmed on 13 July 2006, Mirsad Bektaševic and Abdulkadir Cesur went to Sarajevo in 2005 with the intention of committing a terrorist act on the territory of BiH or some other European country with the aim to force the government Bosnia or of another state to withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Bajric and Ikanovic were alledged to have provided them with explosive substances (pp. 2-3 of the First Instance Verdict).

Core legal questions

Did the First Instance Court err in its findings with respect to the accused?
Can the appeal of the accused be upheld?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Articles 29, 39, 42, 48, 53, 201(1) and (4)(f), 358(1) and 371(2) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Court's holding and analysis

The Appellate Panel modified the sentenced of offenders in the following way: “the Court sentences Bektašević to a single sentence for a term of 8 (eight) years and 4 (four) months” (p. 2). Cesur’s sentence was also modified “to a single sentence of imprisonment for a term of 6 (six) years and 4 (four) months …” (p. 2). Ikanović’s sentence was set for a term of 4 years, while Hasanović received a sentence of 6 months (p. 2).

The Appellate Panel ruled that “[t]he remaining part of the first-instance verdict remains unrevised” (p. 2)

The reduction of the sentences was warranted, according to the Appellate Panel, since “when reviewing the evaluation of the first-instance panel regarding the existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances on the part of the accused and the reasons given by the Court in that respect, this Panel finds that the mitigating circumstances on the part of the accused have not been sufficiently manifested in the imposed sentences, hence the sentences are too harsh. Moreover, when balancing the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances, the first-instance court took into account some that constitute the essence of the criminal offence itself … which as such may not be taken into account when meting out a punishment” (pp. 20-21).

Accordingly, the Appellate Panel “ has upheld in part the appeals of all of the accused and revised the first-instance verdict in the part imposing the sanction… (p. 21).