Marković's appeal to defend himself from freedom was rejected: His DNA is on the weapon, he remains behind bars

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the defendant's counsel Mitra Marković, so one of the accused will participate in the murder Bogdan Milić stay behind bars.

This is written in the decision in which it is stated that the court of first instance acted correctly when it extended his detention and that it was done without significant violations of the provisions of the criminal procedure...

"In this regard, the first-instance decision is rejected by the unfounded appeal of the defense counsel of the defendant MM due to a significant violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure from Art. 386 paragraph 1 point. 9 of the CPC", the document states.

Bogdan Milić was killed in June 2019 in Cetinje. According to the indictment, Lazar Nedović and Pero Laličić were designated as members of a criminal organization and direct perpetrators of that liquidation. In addition to them, the prosecutor's document also includes Marković, Mošo Paović i Žarko Pejaković.

It is explained that Marković, on the order of the head of the criminal group, acquired "browing" and "stayer magnicler" pistols for which he did not have a license and handed them over to Nedović and Laličić in order to kill Milić and the people who were with him.

As is well-founded suspicion, they received information from an unknown member of this organization that Bogdan Milić was on the terrace of the "Portun" bar, where they went and shot.

Milić was then killed, and others were wounded Goran i Dragan Vušurović i Marko Vujacic.

The Appellate Court explains that the well-founded suspicion that the defendant Marković committed a criminal offense - aggravated attempted murder committed by aiding and abetting, combined with illegal possession of a weapon, stems from the fact that one of the guns contains his DNA material...

"Well, when the foregoing is brought into connection with the statements of the witnesses heard so far, from which it follows that the defendant MM rented apartments allegedly for his friends from B., after the commission of the criminal offense that is the subject of the accusation, there is a well-founded suspicion that the defendant MM provided one of the weapons for the commission of the criminal act, which represents an act of assistance, and provided accommodation to the immediate perpetrators, after the criminal act was committed. All of the above points to the existence of sufficient evidence for the existence of a well-founded suspicion that the defendant MM committed the criminal acts charged against him, while the material truth will be determined in the further course of the criminal proceedings," the court's decision reads.

It is added that after the crime, all the defendants found themselves in Budva in the same apartment where they were hiding.

"The well-founded suspicion that the defendant MM was a connection between the organizers of the criminal organization and transmitted messages and instructions to other members of the criminal organization stems from the fact that M. had funds at his disposal, procured weapons and means for committing criminal acts, and this stems from the testimony of witness BN, who describes that the defendant M. had significant amounts of money when he drove him to Nikšić." They reason that even the well-founded suspicion that a criminal organization was formed and that it functioned according to certain rules is also supported by the findings of experts from the telecommunications profession:

"From which it follows that the defendants stop communicating with each other already at the beginning of June 2019, and that there is no communication between them on the critical day of June 11, 6, but they continue to communicate with each other on June 2019, 12 after the crime has been committed , which indicates a well-founded doubt regarding the existence of discipline and following a pre-prepared criminal plan. Also, regarding the existence of reasonable suspicion, the fact that the defendant MP broke the mobile phone before handing it over to the officers of the Police Directorate should not be ignored, which indicates a reasonable suspicion that the phone contained certain data that this defendant did not want or did not was allowed to make available to the police", according to the court.