In the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo, a hearing was held to determine the detention of Ibro Berilo, Nadja Milisic, Adis Mulaosmanovic, and Edina Dzigal for one month, who were arrested as part of the “Incitat” Operation.
Prosecutor of the Canton Sarajevo (CS) Prosecutor’s Office, Darko Soldat, explained the reasons for requesting detention for Berilo and the other three individuals.
Soldat stated that the suspects had been committing criminal acts since 2013, which involved breaches of official duties. According to him, Berilo and Milisic, who is employed in the Trnovo Municipality, illegally expropriated state property on three occasions, confirmed by material documentation.
He mentioned that the third suspect, Mulaosmanovic, built the “Aroma” facility, which contains two apartments that are not registered. As a sign of gratitude for the illegal construction, Mulaosmanovic allegedly gave Berilo apartment 25. Inspectors noted that the facility contained apartments that had no economic purpose.
Intercepted conversations show that Berilo and Mulaosmanovic discussed illegal sales. It was also stated that Berilo and Milisic knew they were under investigation, so they decommissioned the mobile phones they were using, claiming they were broken.
The prosecution states that communication between Berilo and Mulaosmanovic took place through Berilo’s driver, and they referred to the police as “relatives,” using code words to indicate when “relatives were coming.”
Defense argument
Senad Pizovic, the lawyer for Berilo and Milisic, claims that the prosecutor is causing panic among citizens by talking about legal insecurity. One of the defense’s objections is that Berilo was not told the basis for his detention, and the defense considers the detention unlawful.
Regarding apartment 25, he says there is no purchase agreement and therefore it cannot be said that the apartment belongs to Berilo. He also stated that Berilo and Milisic are not hiding evidence and that their mobile phones did indeed break.
Marijan Kresic, the lawyer for Adis Mulaosmanovic, also stated that the prosecution’s proposal is unfounded and rejects the allegations against his client.
He claims that the prosecution has not provided evidence, that the association for committing criminal acts is mentioned, but neither the organizer nor the members of the association are specified, Klix.ba writes.
E.Dz.
