Defense attorneys in the Verusa double murder case reiterated yesterday that a public defender cannot exist in court proceedings unless the attorneys of their choice have canceled their client's power of attorney or their client has not done so.
Murder trial continues Nemanja Prelević (28) and Danilo Peković (20) in Veruša on October 17, 2020, a lawyer entered the courtroom yesterday as well Dragana Vojinović, whom the court appointed as the ex officio defense attorney for all defendants by a decision dated March 10.
Defense lawyers previously stated that the President of the High Court issued an illegal decision in order to complete the process in three years at all costs. If a first-instance verdict is not issued within that period from the filing of the indictment, the accused will be released.
Lawyer Dragana Vojinović said yesterday that she was uncomfortable and could not represent the defendants "under these conditions."
She stated that she had experienced stress at the previous hearing due to a similar situation and that she was unable to act in this case. She soon left the High Court courtroom.
Special State Prosecutor Miroslav Turković He proposed that the court inform the competent prosecutor's office of these circumstances, in order to see whether there are elements of criminal liability.
"At today's main hearing, the ex officio lawyer left the main hearing on her own, despite the judge's warning. This is the second time she has done the same in these criminal proceedings. The prosecution argues that her legal obligation is to provide a defense within 15 days of the day when the conditions were met to exclude her from the proceedings. This is an obvious and calculated abuse of the authority and rights of a defense attorney, which is not designed to benefit the defense, but to manipulate and delay the criminal proceedings," Turković emphasized.
He added that the process is also being used to prevent the proceedings from being completed within the legally prescribed three-year period.
"The prosecution believes that in this specific case, the abuse of procedural powers, as today, falls within the scope of the zone of second and criminal liability. I ask the court to submit the minutes of today's hearing, along with the previous one, to the competent prosecutor's office, as evidence of the lawyer's persistence and deliberate actions, so that the prosecutor's office can determine whether there are elements of criminal liability," the prosecutor assessed.
Defense attorneys reiterated that this was a violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, while the defendants stated that they did not accept a defense attorney ex officio, because they had their own chosen attorneys.
Yesterday, as at the previous main trial hearing, the defendants said that they did not accept being represented by attorney Vojinović.
The Trial Chamber referred to the example of a 1992 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated, among other things, that such a court decision regarding an ex officio defense attorney is possible when it comes to obvious obstruction of proceedings and delay.
Except Mark Zekić, are accused and Miomir Djukic, Dragan Biletic, Vasilije Djukic, Mirceta Mihailovic, Nenad Milicic, Goran Milašinovic, Branislav Ivanovic i Dragan Tarić.
According to the evidence collected, on October 17, 2020, Zekić, Đukić, and Mihailović together killed Prelević and Peković in the town of Uvač, with intent and by prior agreement.
Milašinović, Biletić, Ivanović and Miličić assisted in the serious murder of two Podgorica residents by deliberately creating conditions and removing obstacles. The task of part of the group was to monitor the movement of Prelević and Peković in order to determine the most favorable place and time for their liquidation.
"After they found out that the targets would be in Prelević's house in the town of Uvač on October 17, they communicated that information to Zekić, Đukić and Mirčeta Mihailović, who headed to Veruša," the indictment reads. It is added that Mirčeta Mihailović handed over an automatic rifle and a pistol to Zekić and Đukić, who, after a brief discussion at the door of the cottage, killed Prelević by firing several projectiles into his head and upper body. After killing Prelević, they entered the cottage and killed Peković.
Transcripts of the Sky application used by members of this criminal organization revealed that the murder of Prelevic and Pekovic was planned several months earlier.
According to these allegations, Beranac Zekić physically clashed with Nemanja Prelević in a pub in Podgorica, after which he decided to kill him, and informed the other members of the criminal organization he founded about it, the indictment states, among other things.
In the explanation of the indictment, it is written that, according to evidence from France, Zekić informed the other defendants about the conflict he had in a Podgorica bar, through the Sky application, and told them that he had made the decision to kill Prelevic.
"From further communications from August 5, 8, Zekić states that he made the decision to take the life of Prelević Nemanja precisely because of the fight he had with him and with Bajčeta Vladimir and Banović Marinka in a catering facility. In these messages, Zekić states that he had a gun with him that he left behind and at the same time inquires from other defendants about where Prelević lives, what vehicle he drives, and where his house is located, or what street the injured party's house is on," the indictment states.
Again, comments on Sky
During the evidentiary proceedings, SKY correspondence was examined. The defense objected to the conditions in which SKY was conducted.
Lawyer Danilo Mićović said that the way it was done was legal violence.
Defense attorneys also pointed out that they did not have adequate working conditions - laptops and computers so that they could see what messages were displayed on the screens in the courtroom.
Lawyer Dragoljub Đukanović pointed out that the speed with which SKY messages were used as evidence was also questionable.
Attorney Stefan Jovanović told the court that there is no material evidence in these proceedings that would confirm the alleged SKY messages.
Bonus video:
