Supreme Court Judge Nataša Božović and High Court Judge Sonja Drašković said that former Supreme Court President Vesna Medenica did not pressure them and did not influence decisions on cases.
They will testify today at the Higher Court in Podgorica, where the trial of Medenica and other defendants continues.
Božović and Drašković stated that the cases they handled were like any other and that they were approached that way.
They stated that they stand by their previous statements they gave before the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) in the prosecutor's investigation.
In her statement given in the investigative proceedings on the record of the witness hearing, made before the SDT, Božović stated that, regarding the case in which the parties to the proceedings are "Cijevna Komerc" and "Omorika", it is true that she was a member of the five-member panel at which sessions of the panel this case was presented, along with all other cases that were deliberated on that specific occasion.
She had no prior or subsequent knowledge about them. The deliberation procedure was the usual one, as at any other session.
"The defendant Medenica Vesna, like any other court president, has never tried to influence me, directly or indirectly, towards making a decision in a specific case in a certain way," Božović said.
She added that Medenica had never taken an interest in any case on her behalf on a private basis. In this case, as in any other case in which she acted as a rapporteur or member of the panel, she did not announce the decision before it was officially sent.
She was not aware of the fact that the Supreme Court registry sent all decisions to the president for review before dispatch, nor did she know that Medenica inquired with other colleagues about the handling of cases.
In her statement in the investigative proceedings on the witness hearing record, made before the SDT, Drašković essentially stated that the case of "Cijevna Commerce" against "Omorika", like any other of the 400 cases there are during the year, was in no way special, except for the time since this case became relevant.
She said that she had prepared the case, briefed on it, that there was nothing controversial in that case, and that "Cijevna komerc" had several cases, while "Omorika" was a bit specific, but there was nothing special in that case.
When she said that "Omorika" was specific, she meant that she remembered one of the parties, because she does not remember cases by parties but by facts, but when she saw an article in the newspaper mentioning "Omorika", she remembered that she had a case with "Omorika", so she opened the case to see if it was hers and saw that it was the one. She explained that she and Medenica have no personal contact, they have never even had coffee, are not on friendly terms, have not visited each other, neither privately nor on business. She said that they had the relationship of a judge and the president of the Supreme Court.
She added that she was once in Medenica's office due to a citizen's complaint, her head of office called and there was an agreement to give a statement. She further explained that she prepared the case of "Cijevna komerc" and "Omorika" before the summer holidays in July, because it was an old case that had already been with her once and was terminated.
She could not remember whether she presented it to the council after preparation or perhaps consulted with colleagues, and she did not know whether it was entered in the council's book before the holidays, but she was sure that it was completed in October. She is not a person who would tolerate authority, which is why this job suits her and she has never experienced anyone telling her what to do or how to do it, she revealed during the investigation.
Bonus video:
