This time we shall present to our readers merely the content of five Annexes that were published together with the Decision, as separate opinions of five judges: Hans Danelius, Zvonko Miljak, Snezana Savic, Vitomir Popovic, and Mirko Zovko, which the above mentioned judges gave in the period between August 23 and September 1, 2000 and which were published as annexes to the Decision in the BH Official Herald on September 14, 2000. If the views of the mentioned judges were accepted, the mentioned Decision, at least in the part referring to the constituent character of nations, would have been different. And here is why. Namely, all the mentioned judges, with nuances and small variations, were of the opinion that the Preamble of the BH Constitution does not have a normative character and does not foresee or impose any obligations on entities that make up BH. Since these opinions refer to the part of the Preamble which, truly, refers to all three nations as constituent, but "in the context of the proclamation of the BH Constitution, so that it cannot be considered that this claim from the Preamble can be taken as basis of any normative rule or implies any constitutional obligations," the conclusion of the judges who provided separate opinions follows: "there is no sufficient basis to annul the article 1 of the RS Constitution and article 1 of the FBH Constitution which violate the last statement in the Preamble of the BH Constitution." Besides this explanation about a part of the Preamble of the BH Constitution, judge Snezana Savic gave her opinion regarding the normative character of the Preamble. Judge Savic claims that the Preamble has no normative character at all and finds justification for that statement in the Arbitration Decision regarding Brcko. Judge Vitomir Popovic expresses his opposition and even bitterness regarding the making of the Decision in the conclusion of his separate opinion by stating that "the Decision has in the most flagrant manner violated the BH Constitution and even the Dayton Agreement as a whole" (?!). Judge Mirko Zovko on the other hand assesses that the Decision constitutes "a revision of the Dayton Agreement" and "opposes the views supported by the international community...
Regarding the "events" related to the case, judge Mirko Zovko claims that he was exposed (together with his colleague Zvonko Miljko) "to various pressures, worst insults which escalated to most serious threats, not only to myself but also to some of my colleagues, which above all compromised and continues to compromise, since these pressures continue unabated, the independence of the BH Constitutional Court." The same judge, in his separate opinion criticizes some "independent media" that denounced him and Zvonko Miljko as criminals. Therefore, he hopes that the High Representative for BH, Wolfgang Petritsch, will take a stand regarding the Decision. The High Representative has allegedly indicated that he would take a stand on the decision once it is published in the official publications (?!).
Last, but not the least, it should be mentioned that judge Mirko Zovko in his opinion mentions some "personal favorites". He mentions that on two occasions it was demanded that judge Joseph Marko and on one occasion judge Kasim Begic be taken off the case. The recusal of judge Joseph Marko was requested because, as a member of the Venice Commission, participating in its work he gave a positive opinion regarding whether the constitutions of the FBH and the RS were brought in accord with the BH Constitution (?!). To make the "trouble" even worse in the particular case this respected legal expert was the judge rapporteur, i.e. first among equals and "alpha and omega" in the processing and finalization of this case and the final decision. The reason for the recusal of Kasim Begic, otherwise a professor of the Sarajevo University Law School and a representative in the Parliament, off the case is the participation of this legal expert in Dayton during the writing of the Dayton Agreement and his participation in the process in which the FBH Constitution was brought into accord with the BH Constitution in 1998. Since the Venice Commission analyzed both the Dayton Agreement and whether constitutions of the entities were in accord with the BH Constitution, as well as the BH Constitution itself, these changes in the opinion of judge Marko are indeed surprising. That is why judge Zovko refers to judge Marko and judge Begic as "turncoats"... It is not surprising that both requests were rejected (?!). There are no special comments regarding the voting procedure except that in his separate opinion judge Popovic stated that those judges whose recusal was requested also voted (?!). Really, what can we, ordinary citizens and tax payers say about everything: nothing similar happened even in the old Communist courts (?!). It is important to recall that there are rumors that judges of the BH Constitutional Court will be soon rewarded with monthly salaries equal to three annual average pensions of retired persons in the Federation, while their future pensions would be equal to their last monthly salary before the retirement.