The Court of Appeals has upheld the verdict against Dušan Šilj and Nikola Ivović for the murder of Stefan Šarović. They were sentenced to 17 years and six months in prison each.
After the panel session on September 19, the Court of Appeals issued a verdict rejecting as unfounded the appeals filed by the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica and the defense attorneys of the accused Dušan Šilj and Nikola Ivović against the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica on February 21.
"By the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica, the accused Dušan Šilj and Nikola Ivović were found guilty of the criminal offense of murder in conjunction with the criminal offense of illegal possession of weapons and explosives and were sentenced to a single prison sentence of 17 years and six months each, including the time spent in detention," the Court of Appeal announced.
The appeal against the first-instance verdict was filed by the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica and the defendants' defense attorneys.
The Court of Appeal found the appeals unfounded.
"In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the first instance court, regarding all decisive facts that are in full accordance with the evidence presented at the main trial, gave clear, comprehensive and acceptable reasons as to which facts and on what basis it considered proven, providing a complete assessment of the credibility of all presented evidence, and which established facts and circumstances constitute the elements of the criminal offense of murder for which the accused were found guilty," the statement reads.
The Court of Appeals believes that the first instance court acted correctly when it did not accept the legal assessment of the offense in the indictment, that it was a case of aggravated murder (in a treacherous manner), because the results of the evidentiary procedure show that the legally required elements (subjective and objective) for the existence of a treacherous manner of murder were not met.
"This court examined the contested verdict in the part of the decision on punishment, and assessed that the first instance court correctly determined and sufficiently evaluated all the circumstances that have an impact on the choice of criminal sanction and that are important for the sentence to be higher or lower. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the imposed prison sentences represent an adequate punishment for the gravity of the criminal offense and the degree of guilt of the accused, so it is to be expected that the purpose of punishment will be achieved within the general purpose of imposing criminal sanctions," the Court of Appeals said in a statement.
Bonus video:
