The Supreme Court announced its decision to reject the proposal of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office to extend the custody of Predrag Mirotic, one of the suspects for complicity in the robbery of the depot of the High Court in Podgorica.
In explaining the decision, the court stated, among other things, that the prosecution's proposal does not contain facts and evidence that the defendant committed the criminal offenses charged against him, "nor relevant and sufficient facts that justify the existence of the mentioned reason for detention".
They also emphasized that the Supreme Court can extend custody for a criminal offense punishable by a prison sentence of more than five years, without Mirotic being charged with such a thing.
DON'T MISS IT
We transmit the court's announcement in its entirety:
"The Council of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, deciding on the proposal of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro Kti-S. no. 61/23 of December 22, 2023 for the extension of custody against the defendant P.M., issued a Decision rejecting this proposal.
"The Council of the Supreme Court, composed of Judge Milenko Seka Žižić as the president of the panel and judges Zoran Šćepanović and Seka Piletić as members of the panel, rejected the proposal to extend the custody of the defendant P. M. due to the well-founded suspicion that he committed the criminal offense of criminal association under Article 401 paragraph 2 in relation to paragraph 1 in conjunction with the crimes of aggravated theft from Article 240 paragraph 1 point 1 and prevention of evidence from Article 390 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro.
"In order to provide objective information to the public, we are integrally transmitting part of the explanation from the Decision:
"'According to the provisions of Article 177 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention, which lasted for three months, the Supreme Court can extend for a maximum of another three months, for criminal offenses for which a prison sentence of more than five years has been prescribed, upon the reasoned proposal of the state prosecutor .
"This provision implies that the burden of proving the need for further detention rests with the state prosecutor and that his proposal, in this sense, must contain facts and circumstances that justify the existence of a well-founded suspicion of a committed criminal offense and detention reasons for which detention can be ordered, that is, to extend.
"Namely, the provision of Article 175 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that detention can be ordered when there is a well-founded suspicion that a certain person has committed a criminal offense and if there is one of the reasons for detention from points 1 to 5 of the same paragraph.
"The well-founded suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense is a material condition for ordering custody and it must be based on facts and evidence that indicate the probability that the person in question has committed a criminal offense.
"In the proposal for the extension of detention, the prosecutor does not state from which facts and evidence arise reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed the criminal offense in question. In addition to the existence of reasonable suspicion, it must also be assessed whether there are relevant and sufficient grounds for detention reasons arising from the facts and information obtained.
"For this reason, the proposal for ordering detention must state the facts that support the detention or extension of detention, and not only the provisions of the code that give the possibility of ordering or extending detention. Therefore, the proposal for the extension of detention must contain an explanation of the validity of the claim, which is why the detention should be extended.
"Contrary to the above, in the proposal of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, only the decisions according to which the detention has lasted until now are mentioned, as well as the fact that in the further course of the investigation it is necessary to take evidentiary actions, to hear more witnesses, namely J.V. and B.G., as well as possibly other witnesses, if the need arises, as well as obtain documentation and conduct other evidentiary actions in the form of expert testimony by the Forensic Center in Danilovgrad, with the aim of a clear and complete resolution of the factual situation.
"As the reasons for which the detention was ordered and extended still stand, it is proposed that the detention against the defendant be extended on the basis of detention from Article 175 paragraph 1 points 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without specifying the period of time for which the extension of detention is requested.
"Therefore, the proposal for the extension of custody in the specific case is not based on the individualization of the grounds for detention, because it does not contain any facts and evidence from which there is a well-founded suspicion that the defendant has committed the criminal acts charged against him, nor relevant and sufficient facts that justify the existence of the aforementioned reason for detention, and what it must contain, bearing in mind that in decisions on the extension of detention, the same reasons cannot be repeated over and over again, and abstract formulations cannot be used in proposals for the extension of detention, or even in the decisions by which such proposals they accept.
"It should be pointed out that the provision of Article 174 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates the duty of all authorities participating in criminal proceedings to act with special urgency if the defendant is in custody.
"This implies that the state authorities, and above all the competent court and the prosecutor, are obliged to show special commitment and diligence in detention cases, in order to ensure the progress of criminal proceedings.
"For the efficient conduct and completion of the investigation, especially in detention cases, the responsibility rests with the state prosecutor, who must take all measures in order to finish the investigation in a timely manner and thus reduce the detention to the minimum necessary measure.
"In this regard, this court notes that in the proposal for the extension of detention, no reasons were given for why the two witnesses mentioned were not heard during the current period of detention, as well as what forensic expertise is necessary to conduct and why the same, by of the Forensic Center in Danilovgrad were not carried out.
"Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the Supreme Court can extend the custody of the accused in accordance with Article 177 paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a criminal offense for which a prison sentence of over five years is prescribed, which does not refer to the criminal offense of criminal association from Article 401 paragraph 2 in relation to paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, for which the law prescribes a prison sentence of up to two years and the criminal offense of preventing evidence from Article 390 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, for which a fine or imprisonment of up to one year is prescribed, which the defendant P.M. puts the burden according to which the extension of detention is proposed,'" the Supreme Court announced.
Bonus video:
