The trial of the accused for the murder of Saša Klikovac ended, verdict on February 10

The Special Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against Marko Šuković, Miloš Marković, Ivan Milačić and Predrag Vukadinović for membership in a criminal organization and the murder of Saša Klikovac in July 2020. Jovan Miković was also charged with illegal possession of weapons

15404 views 54 reactions 2 comment(s)
Crime scene investigation after the murder of Saša Klikovac (archive), Photo: Savo Prelević
Crime scene investigation after the murder of Saša Klikovac (archive), Photo: Savo Prelević
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

With the closing arguments of the prosecutor and defense, the trial of the defendants for the murder of Saša Klikovac concluded today at the Higher Court in Podgorica.

The president of the special council of judges, Zoran Radović, will announce the first-instance verdict on February 10.

The Special Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against Marko Šuković, Miloš Marković, Ivan Milačić and Predrag Vukadinović for membership in a criminal organization and the murder of Saša Klikovac in July 2020. Jovan Miković was also charged with illegal possession of weapons.

Special prosecutor Nataša Bošković in her closing statement asked the court to plead guilty to the defendants Marković and Šuković and to sentence them to long-term prison terms. She asked for four years for the defendant Vukadinović, and for Milačić, she asked the court to sentence him to seven years in prison.

In the closing statement, the defense attorney of the defendant Marko Šuković, attorney Maja Turković, proposed that the court acquit him of the charges by applying the principle of criminal law "in dubio pro reo", that is, in the case of suspicion, leniency for the defendant.

If the court finds that the defendant is criminally responsible, to punish him in proportion to his guilt and contribution in the critical event.

The indictment charged Šuković with having committed the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization under Article 401a paragraph 2 in relation to paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro and the criminal offense of aggravated murder under Article 144 paragraph 1 point 1 and 4 in relation to Article 23 of the Criminal Code. Montenegro.

The defense believes that after the presentation of evidence in the criminal proceedings before this court, he cannot be declared guilty and sentenced for the aforementioned crimes, because the presentation of the available evidence has unequivocally established that the elements of the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization, as well as the criminal offense of aggravated murder, have not been fulfilled. or an insidious way and out of self-interest in co-perpetration.

"The prosecution did not prove that the critical event took place in the manner presented in the factual description of the indictment, but on the contrary, the defense proved that the indictment in question was fabricated, untrue, illogical and arbitrary, and that it was the result of unconstitutional and unlawful actions of the procedural subjects that preceded the drafting of the indictment in question," said attorney Turković.

Then she gave arguments for her claim.

"That the indictment is fabricated, and that the factual description from which the legal qualification of the acts that my client and other defendants are accused in this proceeding is charged is far from the truth, is indicated by the undeniable fact that the indictment is essentially based on the minutes of the Special State Prosecutor's Office on the hearing of Marko Šuković as a suspect.

In this regard, in his defense before this court, the defendant Marko Šuković clearly said that he did not give a statement before the SDT as a suspect on July 25, 2020 regarding the circumstances of the critical event itself, on the basis of which a fair and the true legal qualification of the act, a statement was taken from him only in the segment of taking personal data from the suspect.

Defendant Šuković explained to his defense before this court that on that occasion they brought him a record to sign, which contained an already written statement that he did not give, and which he signed at the urging of an 'imposed' lawyer.

That the truth is on the side of my client, and that he really did not give the statement in question, but that it was framed for him to sign by the actions of the acting prosecutor at the time, who is currently in custody due to well-founded suspicions that he committed several criminal acts of abuse of official duties, unequivocally confirms the very fact that the defense and the court never received the entire audio-visual recording of the testimony of the defendant Šuković Marko, but only a segment of taking personal data from him, while the statement about the critical event and the criminal He lacks the burden of his actions.

The elements of being of this criminal act have not been realized, and therefore the qualifying circumstances of insidiousness and self-interest do not exist, as well as co-perpetration.

In order to be able to speak of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, it is necessary that the perpetrator's fraudulent behavior is particularly pronounced, as well as the abuse of the victim's trust and innocence, while cruelty is reflected in the torture of the victim.

In that direction, in the specific case, the victim was not tortured, while on the other hand, as the injured party caused accumulated fear in the accused Miloš Marković by his behavior in a way that this accused truthfully and fully explained in his defense, it is more than clear that the injured party was not a harmless person nor could he have previously trusted the participants of this critical event.

In this specific case, the accused Marković Miloš, as stated in the indictment, suddenly, when the injured party did not hope for it, nor could he expect an attack, nor provide defense, fired at least six projectiles, two of which hit him, as a result of which the injured party Saša Klikovac sustained injuries that resulted in his death, and the accused Šuković Marko drove the accused Marković Miloš to the immediate vicinity of the restaurant 'Kod Crnogorca' in order to kill Klikovac Saša.

According to this counsel, they do not represent actions that exceed the standard framework of secrecy and concealment, they are not cunning, deceitful or deceitful, nor did the defendants lure the injured party using the victim's trust.

According to the defense's assessment, from a legal perspective as well as from a life perspective, the court must take into account and appreciate the fact that the injured party was registered in the police records as a person of security interest, that before the critical event, he persistently caused serious and real fear in the accused Marković with his behavior. and that the injured party, considering the lifestyle he led, could expect a threat and danger to his safety and life on a daily basis, from several sides, which is why it is very likely that he carried with him at all times weapons.

Also, during the proceedings, it was not proven that my client received any material benefit, i.e. profit, for the help he provided to his co-defendant Marković on critical occasions, nor that the same was promised to him, but that he helped the same exclusively and only for friendly reasons. , and that there was no other motive, given that the accused Marković was afraid for his safety, because he had previously complained that the injured party harassed, mistreated and threatened him for a long period of time.

At the same time, we specifically point out to the court that my client agreed to help the accused Marković, in the way of driving him so that the accused Marković could beat the injured party for the explained reasons, but that the accused Marko Šuković had no idea what would happen in the circumstances in question, nor did he know that the accused Marković has a gun with him, because if he had known that, he would never have gotten into the vehicle, nor would he have driven the accused Miloš Marković to the scene of the critical event.

In the end, as it has not been proven that the critical event took place in the way it was presented in the constructed indictment of the SDT, which is full of flagrant contradictions, untruths and illogicalities, and as it has not been proven that in the specific case the elements of the existence of the criminal acts that my client was charged with were realized charged with this indictment, I ask the court not to follow the conviction of the acting prosecution presented in the indictment, because it is the product of abuse of position and gross violation of the fundamental rights of the defendant by procedural entities whose actions preceded the creation of the same", said lawyer Turković in her closing speech.

Defendant Miloš Marković, lawyers Damir Lekić and Velibor Marković said in their closing arguments that there is no evidence that there was a criminal organization, and that there is no evidence that he committed serious murder, but that it was a criminal act of murder. They suggested that he be convicted only for this crime. Defendant Vukadinović's lawyer, lawyer Damir Lekić, asked the court to issue a judgment of acquittal and to terminate his detention, considering that he has been in custody for 31 months.

The Special Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against Marko Šuković, Miloš Marković, Ivan Milačić and Predrag Vukadinović for membership in a criminal organization and the murder of Saša Klikovac in July 2020. Jovan Miković was also charged with illegal possession of weapons.

According to the indictment of the SDT, the criminal organization was formed by the late Alan Kožar, on whose orders Marković, on July 18, 2020, in a stolen "Golf 3" driven by Šuković, came in front of the "Kod Crnogorac" restaurant and from the back seat, "on in an insidious way and in exchange for the previously promised reward in the amount of 20.000 euros, shot Klikovac.

Klikovac was shot while behind the wheel of his car, a Citroen C3. The investigators determined that Milačić was in charge of tracking the victim and procuring equipment, masks and weapons, which he buried together with Šuković in the hamlet of Poljice after the murder. Vukadinović's task was to provide logistical support to the perpetrators of the crime, to provide money for the rental of "stek apartments".

Bonus video: