It is indisputable that the defendants were on the streets of Nikšić on May 12, 2020, but it is not clear why the prosecutor's office singled them out of the several thousand gathered and attributed the commission of the crime to them.
This is stated, among other things, in the confirmation of the first-instance acquittal in the case initiated against the current head of the Metropolitan Police of the Montenegrin Coast, Joaniki, and eight priests from Nikšić.
DON'T MISS IT
Therefore, they were legally acquitted of the accusation that in 2020 they violated the orders of the Ministry of Health to prevent the spread of a dangerous infectious disease, because they gathered together with citizens on Šak Petrović Square, and then performed a religious ceremony outside the religious building - litigated through the streets of the city.
The decision was made by the panel of the High Court in Podgorica, presided over by Judge Katarina Padalica, and including Jovan Jovanović and Liljana Bulatović.
After the session held on January 24, yesterday they confirmed the verdict of a colleague from the Nikšić Basic Court, judge Mirko Kojović, who, during the acquittal, referred to domestic legislation, international conventions, as well as the practice and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Freedoms.
At the same time, they rejected the appeal of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Nikšić as unfounded.
Joaniki, the former bishop of Buda and Nikšić, and priests Boban Jokić, Dragan Krušić, Vasilij Brborić, Danilo Zirojević, Željko Rojević, Ostoja Knežević, Nikola Marojević and Mirko Vukotić, were put on trial on suspicion of violating the Criminal Code of Montenegro on the Day of St. Basil of Ostrog. Gore and acted contrary to the orders of the Ministry of Health on preventing the spread of a dangerous infectious disease.
The defendants were then, after the prayer walk, detained for 72 hours in the Nikšić Security Center building, and in the town of Trebjes, as well as in other towns of Montenegro, protests were organized in support of the priests.
"The fact is that certain defendants denying the execution and guilt in their defense given before the ODT in Nikšić pointed out that the spontaneously gathered citizens spontaneously went on a prayer walk, as well as all the defendants with them, however, this court also finds that the first-instance court performed a proper evaluation of the defense of the defendants, who unanimously clarified that the prayer walk is not a religious rite, and for that reason, he correctly connected the defense of the defendants with all the evidence presented, and correctly concluded that in the specific case there is no evidence that the defendants committed the criminal offense charged against them burden", according to the decision of the High Court.
In the appeal, it is stated in the verdict, that the first-instance court did not properly appreciate the defense of certain witnesses and that it did not connect them with the video material made by the officers of the Police Directorate and the video material of Television Nikšić, which show the participation of the defendants in the litigation.
"However, the defendants do not dispute that they were on the square on the critical occasion, among a large number of believers, not only from Nikšić, but also throughout Montenegro, who traditionally gathered to celebrate the holiday, but not in the sense of a religious ceremony, since that the Order for taking temporary measures to prevent the introduction into the country, suppression and prevention of the transmission of the new corona virus was in force... which prescribed the prohibition of the presence and detention of more than one person in all public areas, as well as the Order for taking temporary measures for prevention of introduction into the country, suppression and prevention of the transmission of the new corona virus, which prescribes the way of performing religious ceremonies in religious buildings".
For this reason, they state that, contrary to the allegations of the appeal, even for the second-instance court, it is not disputed that the presence of the defendants in the square, among the mass of people, and that, as they stated, they did not invite the people to gather, nor did they mutually agree to pass with people on the streets of Nikšić, does not lead to the conclusion that the defendants undertook any specific action or that they failed to do it, which would have acted contrary to the orders of the Ministry of Health.
"Especially if it is taken into account that the defendant Mirko Vukotić pointed out that during the evening service in the temple of St. Vasilij Ostroški in Nikšić, he loudly called and begged the citizens present to respect the measures of the National Coordination Body and to keep a distance from each other."
The police would have responded if they had to
The court states that the fact that the police did not respond to the gathering speaks for the innocence of the defendants.
"Also, in terms of the provisions of Article 17 of the Law on Public Gatherings and Public Events, immediately before the beginning of a public gathering or during its duration, police officers are authorized to stop a public gathering, if there is a threat to the health of other persons, and in terms of Article 18 of the same law, the order on the interruption of the public gathering will be communicated to the organizer, who is obliged to inform the participants of the public gathering that the gathering has been interrupted and ask them to disperse peacefully, and if the organizer of the gathering does not act in accordance with the orders of paragraph 1 of this article, the police will take measures to disperse the participants of the public gathering gatherings in accordance with the law, which did not happen in this particular case"...
The judges then state that, contrary to the allegations of the appeal, the first-instance court correctly and completely established the factual situation with the evidence presented at the main trial: "And from the correctly and completely established factual situation, it correctly concluded that it was not proven that the defendants committed the criminal offense factually described and legally qualified by the pronouncement of the impugned verdict, so... he acquitted the defendants of the accusation".
Bonus video:
