Knežević's defense requested the disqualification of Judge Đokaj; Razić: We received two different decisions on detention

Lawyer Andrijana Razić explained that an absurd legal situation had arisen because the primary decision skipped the regular one, or rather, the Court of Appeals issued the decision by which her appeal against the decision on Knežević's detention was upheld four days later than the new regular decision on the extension of detention issued by the High Court.

17859 views 33 reactions 18 comment(s)
Photo: Boris Pejović
Photo: Boris Pejović
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

Duško Knežević's defense, attorney Andrijana Razić, today requested the disqualification of the president of the special panel, judge Amir Đokaj, in the "Kaspia" court case, as well as the disqualification of the president of the Higher Court in Podgorica, Zoran Radović, in deciding on the request for the disqualification of judge Đokaj.

Razić submitted this request to the Higher Court at the hearing and stated as the reason that the legal omissions in relation to the accused Knežević were continuing in this proceeding.

She told the court that on the same day she received a decision from the Court of Appeal upholding her appeal against the decision of the High Court on Knežević's detention and the decision of the High Court regarding a new regular extension of Knežević's detention.

She explained that an absurd legal situation had arisen because the primary decision skipped the regular one, or rather, the Court of Appeals issued the decision by which her appeal against the decision on detention for Knežević was accepted four days later than the new regular decision on the extension of detention issued by the High Court.

Essentially, it means that the defense's appeal against the previous decision on detention was accepted, but in the meantime the Higher Court issued a new decision after regular review on the extension of detention. According to the Dobrana's position, it is also disputable that the primary decision skipped the subsequent decision, and that by a few days.

The defense has previously requested the disqualification of Đokaj because he was part of the court when the decision was made on Knežević's detention. Đokaj is also the acting judge in the "Kaspia" case, so the defense believes that it is contrary to legal provisions.

"Today, at the main hearing, I requested the disqualification of the acting judge, Amir Đokaj, on the grounds that he participated in the work of the pre-trial panel that extended the defendant's detention in October, the regular extension of detention in October. And my request for disqualification was decided upon by the President of the Higher Court, in accordance with the CPC. The President of the Higher Court rejected my request, stating that it was unfounded because according to him, there is nothing disputable in the fact that a judge who is supposed to decide on the merits in a case in which he acts as an individual, in a specific case, also participates in the work of the panel that extends the defendant's detention, and therefore decides on the reasonable suspicion of the commission of a criminal offense by that specific defendant," Razić pointed out.

She added that after that decision by the High Court, she received the decision of the Court of Appeal on the appeal against that decision to extend the detention, in which Judge Amir Đokaj participated in the panel.

"The Court of Appeal upheld my appeal precisely for these reasons and overturned the decision because the court was improperly composed because, according to them, the work of the pre-trial panel deciding on the detention of a judge who is simultaneously acting in the case represents a significant violation of criminal procedure, which the defense pointed out when it filed this request for disqualification. So we have a legal situation where the Court of Appeal and the High Court take opposing positions on the issue of the correlation between the actions of the same judge as the president of the panel or as an individual judge who should decide on the merits and issue a verdict, and simultaneously in the work of the panel deciding on the detention. So, is there anything disputable under the law, is it a violation of procedure, and does this violation of procedure ultimately result in the judge's disqualification from further proceedings in the specific case," emphasized attorney Razić.

He believes that the Court of Appeal can now make two decisions, one of which is to depart from some of its previous practice in which it considered that this was a significant violation of the procedure, and which position it expressed in the above-mentioned decision.

"So there is a legal dilemma, an uneven case law, between the Appellate and Higher Courts. Even between the Appellate Court itself. There is also a curiosity happening here and we now have an absurd situation that a new decision, regular, on the extension of detention for Duško Knežević arrived to me. That is, it was served to me on the same day that I received the decision of the Appellate Court approving my appeal due to the participation of the acting judge in the work of the non-trial panel that decided on the previous extension of detention. So, I received at the same time a new decision on the extension of detention and a decision of the Appellate Court approving my appeal and revoking the previous decision on the extension of detention. So, the appeal was deciding on the appeal in the most urgent procedure in criminal law for more than a month and we got an absurd situation that the decision that should have been made a month before the new regular decision and should have been final, was made four days later," Razić specified.

Bonus video: