Skopje, 25 November 2025 (MIA) — In an interview with MIA given after the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg raised serious concerns about a potential breach of the right to a fair trial in the Tank case against former interior minister Gordana Jankuloska, her husband and legal counsel Vlatko Ilievski said the ECHR's concerns were expected as it was obvious even in the initial court proceedings that there would be no fair trial.

Ilievski said Jankulovska, who in the meantime served her prison sentence for the procurement of a government Mercedes, had been convicted in advance, with the judge announcing the verdicts for Nikola Gruevski and Gjoko Popovski pointing to her as the instigator despite Jankuloska's court proceedings being separate due to her pregnancy.

According to Ilievski, the ECHR should ultimately find that Jankuloska's right to a fair trial had been violated on the grounds that the defense had not been given access to the wiretapped tapes in the possession of the then Special Prosecutor's Office.

In this interview with MIA, Ilievski speaks about the failures of the judiciary and the injustice he and his wife experienced during the court proceedings. Their goal, he said, was to get a retrial and full rehabilitation of former interior minister Jankuloska, which he said could take several years.

The European Court of Human Rights has raised concerns about a potential breach of the right to a fair trial in the Tank case against your wife Gordana Jankuloska. You are also her lawyer. What is your take on the ECHR procedure?

Honestly, I expected these issues to be communicted to the government, since it was obvious that even during the Primary Court hearing as well as in the higher courts there was no fair trial. It was obvious even before the trial began because the head of the council of judges, announcing the verdict for Nikola Gruevski and Gjoko Popovski — since there were separate court proceedings for Gordana due to her pregnancy — the judge clearly stressed that Gruevski and Popovski had been instigated by Jankuloska, although Jankuloska was not on trial at the time. 

This meant the judge was biased in the proceedings against Jankuloska and had no doubt whatsoever that she had been the instigator, despite no evidence had been formally presented in the proceedings against Gordana. So it was clear to us we could do nothing in these proceedings — she had been convicted in advance. But the problem was that later the higher courts ignored our appeals and did not even comment on them, specifically regarding this breach. Of course, there were other breaches in the proceedings. First of all, the problem that the tapes were used as evidence.

What kind of explanation has the ECHR requested from our government? From what I have read, there is mention of the tapes as well as other allegations.

Regarding the tapes as evidence, note that Strasbourg is not some fourth-instance court questioning how the factual situation was established. It does not interfere in the work of national courts in terms of what evidence should be considered valid or not, regardless of how it was obtained. In principle, the Strasbourg court does not question if the tapes were illegally obtained or not. It leaves that to the national courts. There is one exception, however, in that the ECHR looks into the trial in its entirety, whether it was fair or not, including how the evidence was obtained. 

We also need to consider the quality of this evidence and whether the circumstances it was obtained in raise doubts about its reliability and accuracy. That is one aspect of the tapes as evidence. Rarely has Strasbourg found a breach of Article 6 on these grounds, but there have been cases. The second issue related to the tapes as evidence is whether the defense had access to the evidence and the opportunity to deny its validity.

In this case, Jankuloska and you as her legal counsel did not have access to the tapes?

On several occasions, the defense requested to see the tapes, and not only the tapes presented as evidence but all tapes because, as you know, only the SPO had access to the entire collection of tapes. Not even the Primary Court had access to them. The SPO had a monopoly on them and it decided which tapes it would consider relevant evidence and which ones it would put aside.

This raises another question: Did the SPO really have a "monopoly" on the tapes or were they also available in other places?

Undeniably so, copies were sold almost everywhere, at farmers markets even. There were some characters, who have now ended up in prison for life, who were selling those tapes. They had gotten those tapes illegally, one way or another, but legally, those tapes were in the sole possesion of the SPO. Not even the court had them. So no one could exercise control over the SPO as to what those other tapes were and why the defense was not given access to them. The ECHR has had a serious practice of establishing a breach of Article 6 on such grounds, so I am convinced this particular case will have the same epilogue.

Have there been other violations of the right to a fair trial?

The express procedure itself. Gordana was convicted in less than two months. She had just given birth, she was not even two months postpartum when the trial continued. It is debatable how much the defense can prepare in such a situation and with such a quick trial. The ECHR addresses that issue, as well. 

Additionally, again related to the tapes as evidence, Gordana could not use her technical advisor's expert opinion because the court simply did not allow her to do so, which calls into question the principle of adversarial proceedings and also the principle of equality of arms. 

Another breach of particular importance is violating the principle of impartiality and independence of judges. The fact that the judge presiding with the council of judges convicted Gordana in advance, with the preconceived idea that she had been the instigator, assuming she was guilty, seriously speaks of an absence of impartiality. 

This right was also violated in the Supreme Court proceedings, when we sought an extraordinary legal remedy of the Supreme Court to do a extraordinary review of the final decision. We had serious indications that two of the judges initially appointed to the council of judges had been arbitrarily removed — by the Supreme Court president and also a member of that council of judges — after they began considering the case, for reasons unclear to us. They refused to allow us to inspect the reasons they were dismissed for. We even caught them in a lie. They gave us one reason, but from the evidence we had, that reason was unfounded. It had been refuted.

We even sought help from the Ombudsman's Office, to no avail. He formally opened a procedure and then could hardly wait to find an excuse to close that procedure. 

The presumption of innocence was violated, as I already mentioned. Also, we came across evidence there had been no consultation and voting before the first instance court at all. So, according to the information we have, which was properly documented and is in the possession of the Court, the members of that council of judges were not allowed to know what the verdict would be until it was publicly announced, much less take part in the voting. This raises the question of whether Gordana had access to a court at all, and whether there was even a court formed in accordance with the law. Because for Strasbourg it is not enough just to have a court formed on the basis of law, but that the court should also operate in accordance with the rules that court was formed on the basis of. 

All these issues have been appropriately addressed in the questions posed to the government. Another thing is that we demanded responsibility be established for this judge's actions, the head of the council of judges of the first instance court. We demanded that the council of judges establish responsibility for the judge's actions. This was in late 2018 or early 2019. The council unanimously rejected our proposal. If it had not, we would not have submitted the application Strasbourg is now ruling on in this situation. I need to stress that it was Aleksandar Dashtevski, the then president of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, who was the first and only of the Macedonian institutions brave enough to note the destructiveness and unfairness toward Gordana in the Tank trial, issuing a decision that Gordana had been the subject of discrimination by the court. This was met with outrage from former PM Zaev’s followers, especially those in the Judicial Council, who even threatened him with dismissal.

From the ECHR's report, it is clear to see how the judges, the prosecutor and part of the judiciary operated and probably still operate. What will you do about it? Will you seek responsibility for the violations of your wife's rights and the omissions in the judicial process against her? Let us not forget the proceedings and the verdict have directly affected your life as a family.

I would no longer initiate anything before our instances competent to decide on the responsibility of judges, because I initiated this seven or eight years ago. We know the outcome. The higher courts did not react to those violations either. Let me mention that one of the judges in the Supreme Court's council was a former judge of the ECHR, which speaks volumes about the integrity and the entire perverted situation prevailing in our judiciary. 

Another reason I would not initiate anything before our national instances is the fact that the particular judge we are talking about, who headed the council of judges then, is now a Constitutional Court justice. In order to hold a Constitutional Court justice accountable, you need a two-thirds majority of the Constitutional Court justices themselves, which is unimaginable. We have seen in recent days how this justice's colleagues have publicly defended her work in relation to some other allegations. 

It remains to be seen what Strasbourg will decide, when it does decide. Previously, in the old Law on the Judicial Council, there was a provision that judges whose decisions subject to a ECHR evaluation were determined to violate Article 6 should be dismissed by default. That provision has long been abolished, so formally and legally there is no mechanism that would call that judge to account.

It remains to be seen if the Judicial Council determines any responsibility of the judges who are still judges. Maybe some of them will retire in the meantime, I don't know… It is hard to imagine that professional responsibility will be taken. However, there are grounds for criminal liability because such abuses, especially by the Primary Court judge, contain elements of the criminal offense of abuse of office and authority. This is precisely the criminal offense that brought fame to this judge, whose career advanced with unprecedented speed afterward. 

I don't know if you noticed, one of the questions regarding that judge's lack of impartiality is posed in the context of the judge's career advancement. That, too, has been appropriately addressed by Strasbourg. Let's see how things turn out. It is still too early to call for responsibility.

What is the next step in the proceedings? When should the government respond to the ECHR's questions? Do you have expectations regarding the answers?

Now that the questions have been communicated to the government, the ECHR has given the government until March 5, 2026, to respond. Our experience so far is that the bureau representing the government of Macedonia in Strasbourg always requests an extension of that deadline and always receives an extension of that deadline. So this deadline can very realistically be expected to be April instead of March. 

Then we need to give our opinion on the responses, and then the government should be informed of it and give its opinion on our responses. If it goes according to the usual dynamics, at least in my experience, this could last another two to three years, if not more. That does not mean the bureau has to exhaust all these deadlines. It can realistically provide responses earlier. There is another option that has not been applied by the government so far, which is the possibility of amicable settlement. The ECHR always proposes this to the opposing parties by default. Realistically speaking, however, this is not in our favor because in order to repeat the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there needs to be a ruling by the ECHR of a breach of Article 6. If there is an amicable settlement, the condition for repeating the procedure, which is our ultimate goal, will not be met. So for Gordana to be rehabilitated, there needs to be a retrial. An amicable settlement that might bring some financial compensation would not mean anything to us. I don't really see how it could help in getting a retrial. 

The bureau is part of the Ministry of Justice, part of the executive branch, while the retrial is in the domain of the judicial branch. The judicial branch is not bound to comply with any agreements made by the executive branch, especially since the Code of Criminal Procedure is clear and states the exact conditions for a retrial.

The judiciary is facing reforms. As an experienced lawyer, and as a member of a family that has felt the impact of the country's legal system, what do you think needs to be done to start reforming this system?

The key institution the reforms should start with, the most responsible one for the judiciary standards, is the Judicial Council – and for the prosecution, the Council of Public Prosecutors. We know the situation there and we cannot realistically expect these institutions to generate any reforms or implement any legislative changes as they are extremely politicized and partisan institutions. They are not accountable to anyone. Even though they were impeached by Parliament, they remained in office. 

In my opinion, developing artificial intelligence will establish standards in the judiciary faster than we ourselves can generate any reforms. I am not optimistic. First of all, there should be some healthy tissue in these institutions so reforms can take root, but unfortunately, I don't see any. It is not that there aren't any good judges, but clearly they cannot rise to the top and take the responsibility and the initiative. 

Elizabeta Veljanoska Najdeska