We do not have all the data, but we have enough of what is presented and I think a general picture can be made. There are definitely flaws. When the first indications appeared that there was a possibility of escape, it took 24 hours to prepare a decision for house arrest. In those 24 hours you can plan a lot of things, even plan an escape, so the flaws must be explored. There is no room for triumph in the fact that the defendant appeared alone, because this in itself is scandalous and outside all legal frameworks how a criminal procedure is conducted, said in the morning briefing Vildan Drpljanin, legal advisor in the Helsinki Committee.

-This comes after a long process of unlearned lessons. Again, no one feels responsible and we see ping pong between institutions. First of all, I think that the action of the Public Prosecutor should have been more expeditious, because it is a high profile case and there should have been a faster action in relation to the actions taken. The Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of National Security are not excluded here. The assessment plan and how much they are able to ensure the presence of the defendants ANB makes in coordination with the Ministry of Interior. In this context, it is really problematic for an Agency not to have information, and for individuals to have it, because the point of that Agency (ANB) is to receive that information and transmit it to the competent institutions, says Drpljanin.

Watch the whole conversation in the video: