Now they are silent about Stanišić and the burning of the "Vijesti" vehicle.

The Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica defends itself with the Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of explaining whether the acting prosecutor made a mistake, as claimed by the Basic Court, when he accused Radoslav Gil Stanišić of having committed the criminal offense of causing general danger through incitement, then ordering minors to set fire more "Vijesti" official cars.

The indictment proposal of the Podgorica Prosecutor's Office was rejected by Basic Court Judge Rade Ćetković, explaining that there is not enough evidence that the alleged leader of the Zagorica criminal group is reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offense - causing general danger through incitement, as claimed by the Podgorica Basic State Prosecutor's Office.

The police named Stanišić as the person who ordered the two then minors SP and DM to set fire to the "Vijesti" official cars, which, according to the prosecutors, they did on four occasions - from July 14, 2011 to February 13, 2014.

Rejecting the indictment proposal, the judge, however, noted that Stanišić could not be charged with that criminal offense, because the prerequisite from the Criminal Code was not met - that the value of the destroyed property individually exceeds the amount of 20.000 euros.

"In the specific case, there is not enough evidence to indicate that the defendant incited the immediate perpetrators to cause danger to...property whose value exceeds 20.000 euros with each individual action, and therefore not that he is reasonably suspected of the crime that is the subject of the accusation" , explains judge Ćetković.

At the beginning of June, when the same court refused to extend Stanišić's custody for the same reasons, it was stated in the case files that the total damage to the burned vehicles amounted to 22.435,11 euros.

However, it took prosecutors nine years to establish this.

After "Vijesti" announced that Stanišić was free due to the negligence of the prosecutor, the ODT Podgorica responded by claiming that the legal qualification of the suspect's actions is the legal position of the state prosecutor in the indictment, but that the court is not bound by the legal qualification:

"He can already, in accordance with the collected facts and evidence, evaluate which criminal offense it is and make a decision at the appropriate stage of the procedure."

However, since then, the ODT has not explained whether, by claiming that the court is not bound by the qualification, they admit that the qualification set by the prosecutor is not good.

"For the above questions that are the subject of your interest, we refer you to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure", the spokeswoman of ODT Podgorica, prosecutor Milica Mandić, replied to "Vijesta".

"Vijesti" asked the prosecutor's office whether, if the prosecutor made a mistake, he will be sanctioned in any way because Stanišić was acquitted, but also whether, in their opinion, the court made a mistake, if the qualification is good.

Although they reacted quickly when it was announced that the indictment proposal was rejected and told the judge that his decision would be examined, the Podgorica ODT will now not specify who was wrong - the prosecutor with the qualification, or the court that did not requalify the criminal offense.

They did not explain who will pay the compensation if Stanišić sues the state for unjustified arrest and detention, nor whether, in that case, the prosecutor will be responsible for proposing detention.

The Podgorica prosecutor's office did not explain why, as the court claims, the damages were combined.

According to Ćetković's decision, the court examined the submission of an indictment proposal and found that it should be rejected, because in the specific case there is not enough evidence that Stanišić is reasonably suspected of the crime that is the subject of the accusation.

Judge Ćetković reasoned that it is clear that in this particular case, in relation to all the individual actions... there is not enough evidence to indicate that causing a fire on "Vijesti" vehicles in each individual case caused a specific danger to property whose value exceeds the amount of 20.000 euros.

The judge claims that neither in judicial practice, nor in legal doctrine, has there been a case of cumulatively adding up the consequences of several actions and thus trying to fulfill the objective condition of incrimination.

ODT Podgorica previously replied to "Vijesta" that the legal qualification of that criminal offense was determined in accordance with the law:

"Taking into account, first of all, the identity of the injured party, the manner of execution of the criminal offense and the circumstances under which all incriminated actions were undertaken, which are described as the manner of execution of the criminal offense in question".

At that time, they stated that, as a criminal prosecution body, they had taken all measures and actions within their jurisdiction - they discovered the perpetrators and the principal.

The "Vijesti" vehicle ignition series began on July 14, 2011. Stanišić spent that year in detention or prison.

"Vijesti" asked the authorities if he commanded minors from prison, but it was never answered.

The suspect denied having committed a crime.

"Vijesti" in July and August 2011, as well as in February 2014, when vehicles were burning, did not publish any articles about Radoslav Gil Stanišić and the so-called Zagorica criminal clan, so the question arises from which center of power this was ordered.

"We are sure that all these attacks, including these arson attacks, could not have been ordered by any individual or criminal, no matter what he was called, without first having a signal, if not a direct order from some center of power, to organize and implement such a crime," she said. the executive director of "Vijesti" Marijana Bojanić, immediately after the police and prosecutor's office labeled Stanišić as the organizer of the attack, and the two minors as the direct perpetrators.

According to Judge Ćetković's decision, Stanišić denied committing a criminal offense during the hearing, stating that he learned about the burning of the "Vijesti" vehicle from the media...