The Court of Appeals decided to open a hearing in the case against the Nikšić resident before that court. Darko Janjić, accused of drug trafficking and planning murder Željko Radulović, son of a criminal from Nikšić Ranko Radulović.
The hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2025.
"We inform you that a panel session was held in the case to which your question relates, at which it was decided to open a hearing before the second-instance court. The hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2025 at 8.30:XNUMX a.m. Once the decision is made, the public, including the media, will be informed in a timely manner," the judge, spokesperson for the Court of Appeal, told Vijesti. Danijela Vukčević.
This decision followed appeals against the re-verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica, which sentenced Janjić to three years and eight months in prison in October 2024.
Previously, judges of the Court of Appeal at the end of August last year overturned the first-instance verdict based on evidence from Sky Communications, arguing that there were no clear and valid reasons regarding its admissibility.
This decision was made after the appeal of Janjić's defense attorney, lawyer Branko Anđelić.
The Court of Appeal then ordered a retrial and a thorough analysis of all evidence, but the High Court judges reiterated the decision.
In a revoked verdict, Janjić was sentenced in February and then in October to three years and eight months in prison for planning the murder of a fellow citizen and drug trafficking.
Correspondence from the Sky application was used as evidence, through which, according to the claims of the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), Janjić communicated directly with one of the organizers of the criminal group. Radovan Mujović and, among other things, informed him about Radulović's movements and habits.
The alleged member of the criminal Kavača clan targeted the son of Ranko Radulović, who, according to operational police data, closely cooperates with the Škaljari criminal clan.
Considering the appeals of the SDT, which requested a higher sentence, and Janjić's defense attorney, attorney Anđelić, the Appellate Court panel in August assessed that the first-instance court was obliged to base its verdict exclusively on the facts and evidence that were directly presented at the main trial.
They then concluded that the defense attorney's appeal, which pointed to significant violations of the criminal procedure, was well-founded:
"The operative part of the contested verdict is incomprehensible, contradictory to itself and to the reasons for the verdict. The verdict does not contain reasons on the decisive facts that are the subject of proof, and the reasons given are unclear and to a significant extent contradictory," the first decision of the Court of Appeal states.
The judges particularly highlighted the problematic nature of the first instance court's decision in relation to the correspondence from the Sky application, assessing that adequate reasons were not provided regarding the legal nature of the evidence, its acquisition, or its compliance with the principles of the domestic legal system and generally accepted rules of international law.
"In relation to the above, the first-instance court did not provide legally acceptable explanations of its factual and legal conclusions, and in terms of Art. 379 paragraph 7 of the CPC, on the basis of which provision the court is obliged to state the reasons for each point of the judgment in the explanation of the decision, which enables the parties to challenge the decision with legal remedies, and the appellate court to examine whether the decision is correct and legal in the context of legal remedies ", the decision reads.
They explain that the defendant's defense attorney rightly pointed out in the appeal that the reasons of the first instance court, which based its decision on accepting Sky communication on the content of the decision of the Constitutional Council of France, were unclear, and that the court did not review that decision.
The defendant maintained his reasons for the appeal, and the other defense attorney of the Nikšić resident, attorney, also expressed the same position. Marko Knezevic.
In its first decision, the Appellate Court Panel pointed out numerous shortcomings in the reasoning of the first-instance verdict.
Bonus video:
