Judge Posavec had filed the same request two days ago. The Commission then postponed a discussion on the request with an explanation that the investigating judge should have asked for stripping Glavas of immunity before he made a decision on remanding him in custody.
According to a spokesman for the County Court, today's request made by Posavec is identical to the previous one, and the only difference that the new motion has some additional explanations.
The judge does not think that he breached the procedure and that at the moment when the investigation was launched, he had to decide first on the detention motion by the Office of the State Prosecutor and after that he could ask the parliamentary body to strip the suspect of immunity.
"The judge has in more detail explained why he believes that in the first motion he acted in compliance with the Constitution and why he believes that he made no procedural omission, which the Commission claimed in the answer," the spokesman, Judge Ratko Scekic, told reporters in Zagreb.
Scekic said that now it was up to the parliamentary commission to decide on the next move.
He added that in case the commission did not grant Judge Posavec's request, the decision on Glavas's detention would not be carried out.
Asked by reporters whether the parliamentary commission may have violated the principle of division of power into the judicial, legislative and executive branches, Scekic said that it could be said so.
In a system of the three branches of authority, it is only a court of higher instance that can decide whether a lower court has made a procedural mistake or not. Nobody from the legislative branch can make such assessments, Scekic said.
Also today, Judge Posavec continued the investigative proceedings in the case of Glavas, who is suspected of having committed war crimes against civilians in the eastern city of Osijek in late 1991. The probe was launched into allegations that Glavas, a war-time power-broker in Osijek, ordered the murder of two Serb civilians and torture of another three.
The judge questioned two witnesses but they declined to tell reporters about their testimonies due to the fact that the investigation is treated as classified.