As expected, the Presidency of BiH did not reach agreement on the legal status of the agent Sakib Softic, and yesterday in The Hague were sent three separate letters in which Ivanic, Izetbegovic, and Covic presented their own visions of this dispute.
As reported, the member of the Presidency of BiH from the Croatian people Dragan Covic, in his letter, took a neutral stance, and he neither challenged nor confirmed the legal power of agent Softic, but noted that the Presidency of BiH will have no unified position.
In contrast to the neutral Covic, Ivanic attempted to challenge the legal power of agent Softic in his letter and claimed that the Presidency of BiH did not authorize him to submit the application for the revision of the judgment. Ivanic believes that the mandate of agent Softic expired in 2007, after the pronouncement of the first judgment, and that his mandate was not extended after that.
He also noted that the Presidency of BiH in the current mandate did not decide to initiate the revision nor the appointment of Softic for an agent.
Izetbegovic called for the universal principle of continuity of legal regulations in his letter, which is applied to all states of the world: all adopted regulations, decisions, regulations, etc. shall remain in force until they are reversed, or revised by the competent authority. This, in particular in the case of agent Softic, means that his term of office has not expired in 2007, as Ivanic claims, but is still active since the Presidency of BiH never deprived nor reversed the mandate.
Izetbegovic in his letter noted the integral content of the decision on the appointment of agent Softic from 2002, from which it is clear that his mandate is not limited by time nor strictly tied for the first judgment.
Izetbegovic is supported by the fact that agent Softic already represented BiH in two separate lawsuits against Serbia.
To recall, after BiH filed a lawsuit on genocide, Serbia was trying to challenge the jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal, stating that it was not a member of the UN during the wartime and that, therefore, it cannot be judged for violating international conventions on the prevention of genocide.
Serbia lost that dispute, The Hague court was declared as competent, and then started the trial at the lawsuit of BiH.
In both cases, BiH was represented by agent Softic and the Court never challenged his legitimacy nor requested further clarification from the Presidency of BiH. Izetbegovic’s letter stated that the revision of the judgment is part of the same legal dispute and that the agent Softic has active legitimation to represent BiH.