He will remain behind bars. Drazen Vojvodić, convicted in the first instance of murder Vidak Vujović, after the Court of Appeal dismissed as unfounded the appeal of his defense attorney against the decision to extend his detention.
On May 19, Vojvodić was sentenced to a single long-term prison sentence of 40 years for the murder of Vujović in a cruel and treacherous manner and for illegal possession of weapons. Novice G. Đikanović He was simultaneously sentenced to five and a half years in prison for aiding the perpetrator after the crime was committed...
The decision of the Court of Appeal dated June 4 states that the panel examined the appeal and found that the decision of the High Court on detention was not affected by significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure (Article 386, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code)...
“In the opinion of this court, the first instance court, in the explanation of the contested decision, regarding the grounds for detention on which the detention of the defendant VD was extended, provided sufficiently clear and valid reasons, which this court also accepts... Furthermore, since the appeal of the defendant VD's defense counsel, attorney LD, was filed due to significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, without specifying which ones, this court examined whether the first instance court committed a significant violation of the provisions of criminal procedure and from Article 386, paragraph 2 of the CPC, and determined that the contested decision was not affected by these violations either, since when issuing the contested decision, the first instance court correctly applied all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relevant for lawful and proper decision-making in the specific case. Also, the appeal of the defendant VD's defense counsel, attorney LD, challenges the first instance decision as unfounded due to the erroneous and incomplete determination of the factual situation, and in this regard also due to the violation of the Criminal Code. This is because this court finds that "The first instance court issued the contested decision based on a properly and completely established factual situation, which is in full accordance with the situation in the case file of that court," the Court of Appeal states.
They explain that Vojvodić is reasonably suspected of having, together with Đikanović, on March 31, 2023, in a treacherous and cruel manner deprived Vujović of his life, after luring him to the outskirts of Podgorica and after which Vojovodić shot him with four shots from a pistol...
They also remind that the defendant was alive at the time and begged the attacker to stop, which he did not do, "but continued to fire missiles at the injured party"...
"After which, together with the defendant Đ.N., he poured gasoline on and set fire to the lifeless body of the injured party VV, and then left the scene together," the court quoted the prosecution's documents...
However, the first-instance verdict did not convict Đikanović of aggravated murder, but rather of the criminal offense of aiding and abetting the perpetrator after the crime had been committed.
His legal representative, a lawyer Aleksandra Rogošić, announced that she would appeal the verdict.
"As for the sentence, I believe it is still too high. The court did not take into account numerous mitigating circumstances. The defendant pointed out all the facts from the beginning as they were proven. He admitted to committing the crime and cooperated with the court and helped," Rogošić said at the time.
"I killed a spy."
The judges also cite the witness's statement, which suggests that on the night between April 1 and 2, Vojvodić called her via a social media network to meet, that he came to pick her up in his vehicle, and that while driving, he showed her a recording on his mobile phone...
"In which she saw a guy lying on his side, his back turned, whose face she could see in profile, that the guy was alive, because he moved his legs, that she thought that at that moment the guy was saying 'don't' and after that she heard VD laughing in the background of the recording and then a shot was heard and she saw that the shot hit the guy who was lying down. When asked why he did it, VD replied: 'He wanted to kill me yesterday, and it was better that I killed him than that he killed me'," the text says.
The statement of another witness is also cited, from which it emerges that on April 11, 2023, after asking him whether he had followed the posts on portals related to the criminal offense in question, the defendant Đikanović told him: "I killed the spy, I set the spy on fire, nothing of him is left."
Bonus video:
