Defendant Danilo Mandić - nephew of the President of the Parliament of Montenegro Andrija Mandić - stated at today's hearing in the Basic Court in Podgorica that he would not present his defense or answer questions from the court and the prosecution, except for questions from his defense attorney, if any.
The Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT) is charging him with a serious offense against public security, causing minor bodily harm, unauthorized possession of weapons and explosives, and confiscation of a vehicle because, allegedly on the night between April 18 and 19, 2025, at around 3:40 a.m., in the center of Podgorica, at the intersection of Bulevar Ivana Crnojevića and Ulica Marka Miljanova, he blocked the path of Turković and Perović and allegedly shot at them, driving a parliamentary car, the "Range Rover".
Prosecutor Ivan Bojanić attended the hearing, while the injured party, Aris Turković, did not appear. Judge Ivana Becić said that there was no evidence in the case files that he had been properly notified of the hearing. As she stated, the police did not find him at the address, and the notice was left on the door of the apartment.
Witness Dejan Marinković did not attend today's hearing due to a scheduled examination at the Clinical Center of Montenegro (KCCG).
The court determined that witnesses Stefan Kaljaj, Uroš Radusinović and Aleksandar Boričić, as well as the injured party Darko Perović, who was brought from the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (UIKS), appeared.
Perović has been behind bars since May on suspicion of committing the crime of usury.
Perović refused to testify, court fined him
The injured party, Darko Perović, stated before the court that he did not receive a summons for today's hearing and that due to mental and health problems, he is unable to make a statement.
"I have psychological problems with myself," said Perović, stating that his condition was not recorded in the medical documentation.
Judge Ivana Becić informed him of his obligation to state everything he knew about the event, but Perović reiterated that he could not do so because he was not feeling well.
The judge then ordered that a medical expert be called to the hearing to assess his psycho-physical condition and ability to testify. She called expert Ljiljana Vučinić by phone, who informed her that she was unable to appear due to prior commitments, after which the judge called psychiatric expert Željko Golubović, who said he could come at 10:30 a.m.
The record states that the injured witness, despite the court's warning, refuses to testify. After the court informed him that he would be examined by an expert, Perović stated: "I will not answer his questions, he cannot examine me."
The court then issued a ruling ordering a psychiatric evaluation of Darko Perović on the circumstances of his ability to give testimony at today's main trial.
Perović returned to the courtroom at 10:30 and pleaded not competent to answer questions due to mental health problems.
"I don't want to answer the psychiatrist's questions because I am not mentally capable," the witness said.
The court noted that psychiatric expert Željko Golubović had attended the main hearing. In the presence of the expert, Perović reiterated that he was not feeling well, that he could not testify and that he would not give answers or conduct an interview with the expert, stating that he was not capable of doing so.
In response to a specific question from the court, expert witness Golubović pointed out that no one should be searched by force.
"From a forensic medical perspective, no one can be forced to undergo a medical examination, and without an examination or interview, I cannot give my findings and opinion," said Golubović.
The court then dismissed expert witness Željko Golubović.
The court has therefore issued a decision to fine Perović 800 euros, which will be subject to a separate decision.
Judge Becić said that after the conclusion of today's main trial hearing, she will submit the case files to the Basic State Prosecutor's Office to consider whether there are elements of a criminal offense in witness Perović's behavior.
Perović then stated that he did not want to continue following the main trial and requested to be dismissed. The court accepted his personal request and dismissed him from the remainder of today's hearing.
Differences in Radusinović's testimony
Witness Uroš Radusinović stated that at the time of the incident he was in a vehicle driven by Dejan Marinković, while he was the passenger.
"I can't remember the exact date. My friend and I were walking down the street and came across two stopped vehicles. At first we thought they had collided, but no one was there. We made a detour, passed by again and saw a crowd of about ten people. At that moment we heard a sound like a gunshot, turned around and saw a group of people - three people on one side and three on the other. We called the police," the witness said.
He said at today's hearing that he did not see the person who fired the shot or the person holding the gun. When asked by the judge about the physical characteristics of the people he saw, Radusinović said that he remembers a person between 30 and 40 years old, but that he cannot speak about their height because they were quite far away.
"I can't remember the physical characteristics. One person was balding or bald, that's all I can remember. That person was wearing a white sweatshirt and black jeans, or vice versa, I'm not sure. One person was kneeling on one leg, I assume that's the person who was shot. That person was wearing a colorful tracksuit."
He added that after calling the police, they left the scene for safety reasons. When asked by the court which vehicles he saw at the scene, the witness replied that he saw "a Range Rover jeep and an orange Skoda Fabia", while "a Renault Megane" was passing by.
"There were three people on one side - the attackers' side, and more on the other. I only heard noise and shouting," he said.
Radusinović stated that "after the unfortunate event, they met with the police and assisted in searching the area to find a bullet casing or some trace, but they were unable to find anything."
"Then they asked us to go to the Security Center, which we did," he said.
The judge presented the witness with the differences in his statement compared to the one given to the prosecution, reminding him that he had then stated that "one person was holding a gun in his right hand, about 180 cm tall, balding and a little plump."
The judge also read part of Radusinović's earlier statement to the prosecution.
"The gun I saw was black, but it was shiny, which caught my attention. It was about 20 centimeters long. Two people were holding the person with the gun to calm him down. I only heard one shot."
When asked by the judge why there were differences in the statements, the witness replied that the event was in the winter and that he had forgotten the details. When asked by the judge why he said today that he did not see the gun, Radusinović said that he did not remember saying that and asked to be read the part of the record in which he stated that.
After the judge read him the statement he gave to the prosecutor, Radusinović said he "remembered the events a little better."
"What sticks in my memory is that the balding person, dressed in the black and white combination that I described, was not the person holding the gun, but the one who lunged at the person who was shot. That person had his back to me."
He added that "everything he said to the prosecutor was true," but that "this is what he remembers today."
The prosecutor objected to the testimony, stating that the witness's claims today contradict the testimony he gave earlier, but that he still stands by what he said to the prosecutor.
When asked by defense attorney Miroje Jovanović whether he saw blood at the scene, the witness replied: "After we searched the area with the police, none of those present, in my memory, noticed blood or any other traces of the previously observed conflict I was talking about."
Defense attorney Jovanović then objected to the testimony in the part where, as he stated, the witness' statements were inconsistent: "Two days after the event, he told the prosecutor that he could not remember the person he saw, let alone now, after six months. He did not comment on that today either, so it is logical that he does not remember the details."
Kaljaj: No one influenced me or threatened me
Stefan Kaljaj testified that a lot of time had passed since the event and that he had forgotten a lot.
"I just remember walking down that street, stopping at a traffic light, seeing the crowd, hearing a gunshot, and continuing to move to get away," Kaljaj said.
After that, as he stated, he returned and asked the inspector if everything was okay, after which the inspector asked him how he knew what had happened, and he explained that he had heard a gunshot.
Kaljaj then, as he said, gave a statement at the Security Center, and later to the prosecutor.
"I couldn't remember any more details than what I said. I slept poorly and worked until three in the morning, that's all I remember," he added.
The judge presented him with the differences in the narration from the previous statements. She recalled that he had described the event in great detail to the prosecutor and that he had stated that “the person holding the gun was wearing a white T-shirt and black jeans, had a purse, was larger, bald and taller than the other people. The gun he was holding was a Colt - and I am 100 percent sure of that, white with black details. The person with the gun turned to the other people and shouted something at them, and then got into the Range Rover.”
Kaljaj clarified that he stands by his statement to the prosecutor, and said that after the judge read him the statement he gave to the prosecutor, he more or less remembered the events.
He said that he had no health problems and that no one had influenced him or threatened him in the meantime.
Boričić: A lot of time has passed, and I was really drunk that night.
Aleksandar Boričić testified that during the critical night he was in the bar together with Danilo Mandić, Darko Perović, Aris Turković and Zvezdan Lekić.
"It's a large booth with several tables, we were there until late and we drank. That day I started drinking from the morning. It was normal socializing and there were no problems," Boričić said.
After that, as he said, he left the bar and went home, driving a Renault Megane. He pointed out that he was on good terms with the accused Mandić and that they had an excellent relationship.
The judge presented him with the differences in the narration from his earlier statements. Boričić explained: "A lot of time has passed, and I was really drunk that evening. The booth is strange, there are several tables and people can sit separately, so it seems like everyone is together. Due to the passage of time and the state of drunkenness, I could not remember who I was with. After the critical event, I went home to Zagorič, and the next day I went to the village in Lijeva Rijeka. I left my phone at home and I was without a phone for those nine days."
Prosecutor Bojanić objected to part of the testimony due to his inability to remember details from the bar, noting that Boričić, according to his own account, drove the vehicle alone and went home even though he was under the influence of alcohol.
Mandić's defense attorney, attorney Jovanović, stated that it is a well-known fact that most people can drive under the influence of alcohol, which does not affect the witness's ability to recall the circumstances of the event. Jovanović emphasized that Boričić's statement was more relevant to the prosecutor because it was closer to the time of the critical event.
When asked by the court how often he consumes alcohol, Boričić replied: "I drink often, I drank beer all day, I don't know the exact amount. I am 186 cm tall and weigh 112 kg."
Regarding the situation with his phone, he stated that he has a weaker signal in his village and that he usually does not carry it when working in the countryside, especially during the sowing and harvesting of potatoes, which lasts 10–15 days.
When asked by Judge Becić if he remembered where he was after leaving Shop 697, he said: "I can't remember if I parked my vehicle anywhere after leaving Shop 697, I think I went left, but I'm not sure."
Next hearing on December 12th, court refuses to lift detention order for Danilo Mandić
The next hearing in the case of Danilo Mandić is scheduled for December 12, and the President of the Parliament of Montenegro, Andrija Mandić, as well as Zvezdan Lekić, Nina Vujković, Ljiljana Mandić, Mihailo Čađenović and Jelena Gajović will be called as witnesses.
Miroja Jovanović's defense attorney proposed that the court act on the decision of the Constitutional Court, which on August 1st found a violation of Danilo Mandić's rights, and consider terminating the detention.
The prosecutor opposed the proposal, stating that the court ex officio examines and controls detention, without the need for a proposal from the prosecutor.
The court rejected the defense attorney's proposal, explaining that the reasons for detention still apply and that the degree of reasonable suspicion due to which he was detained has not decreased.
The Constitutional Court, as a reminder, previously concluded that the evidence in the case did not contain sufficiently specific and reliable reasons to link Mandić, at the level of basic suspicion, to the commission of the acts he is charged with.
Chronology of events
As previously reported, on the night between April 18 and 19, 2025, at around 3:40 a.m., in the center of Podgorica, at the intersection of Bulevar Ivana Crnojevića and Ulica Marka Miljanova, a shooting occurred in which Darko Perović and Aris Turković were wounded.
As previously announced by the Police Directorate, Danilo Mandić blocked the path of Perović and Turković in the official vehicle of the Parliament, a "Range Rover", and fired several shots in their direction, as a result of which both of them sustained injuries to their legs.
Initially, the incident was classified as attempted aggravated murder and illegal possession and carrying of weapons and explosives.
A day later, on April 20, Mandić, according to the Police Directorate and his lawyer, came to the Podgorica Security Department accompanied by his defense attorney and was deprived of his liberty by order of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office.
His defense attorney, lawyer Miroje Jovanović, stated at the time that Mandić came to the police after "a story emerged that he allegedly participated in the incident."
On April 21, the Higher Court in Podgorica ordered Mandić to be detained for up to 30 days due to the risk of flight, influencing witnesses and possible repetition of the crime. Police said at the time that the wounded Perović (53) refused to show identification when police arrived at the scene late at night on April 19, and then fled, causing a traffic accident, after which he was deprived of his liberty.
According to a statement from the Police Directorate at the time, immediately after learning about the incident, police officers went to the scene, where they found a man who refused to provide them with his personal documents. As the Police Directorate said at the time, Perović left the scene in a Škoda vehicle with Podgorica license plates, obstructing the police officers in carrying out their official duties and ignoring a stop sign. In an attempt to escape, the vehicle crashed into concrete pillars on Novaka Miloševa Street, after which the police stopped the driver and determined that it was Perović.
Due to an injury to his right lower leg, which the police noticed during the stop, Perović was referred for medical attention to the Clinical Center of Montenegro (KCCG).
The test determined that he was under the influence of alcohol, with a concentration of 0,66 g/kg, as well as cocaine. Due to several violations of the Traffic Safety Act and the Public Order and Peace Act, Perović was deprived of his liberty, and a day later, on April 20, 2025, the Court of Misdemeanors found him guilty and fined him 3.450 euros.
The issue of the official vehicle of the Parliament that Mandić was driving, namely the "Range Rover" that the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) had previously confiscated from criminals and that was in the vehicle fleet of the Parliament of Montenegro, was also raised. It was investigated who had given Mandić the keys to the vehicle, and the Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT) in Podgorica ex officio opened a special case to check for possible misuse of that vehicle.
The ODT confirmed in September that a separate indictment was filed against Mandić on June 30 for the criminal offense of confiscating a vehicle, namely the use of the official Parliament "Range Rover" on the night of the shooting.
It was later decided that a single proceeding would be conducted against Mandić, and he was charged with a serious offense against public safety, minor bodily harm, illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and confiscation of a vehicle.
Mandić's defense attorney, Jovanović, said at the time that Mandić was only charged with statements from the injured parties and that no on-site investigation had been conducted, which the Higher State Prosecutor's Office confirmed.
According to them, a formal investigation into the shooting in the city center was not conducted because the police did not receive an order from the prosecutor's office to do so. According to the prosecutor's office, the competent authorities were notified of the incident with a significant delay, only at 07:47 a.m., which, they said, was one of the reasons why the investigation was not conducted immediately.
Although a formal investigation was not conducted, the police announced that they had inspected and searched the immediate and wider area of the incident several times, questioned eyewitnesses and seized surveillance camera footage in order to collect evidence. Adequate files were also compiled with accompanying photo documentation. The police stated that these measures were taken in accordance with professional rules and that they provided relevant information for the further course of the investigation.
The defense attorney said that this omission by the prosecution affects the weight of the evidence, because the case is based almost exclusively on the statements of the injured parties.
According to the testimony of the witness-injured person Darko Perović, for whom Prosecutor Jelena Protić issued an order for forcible bringing because he failed to appear for questioning twice, he told the Higher State Prosecutor's Office that Mandić was not the person who shot at him. Perović stated that he was shot by the shortest of three younger men, aged between 23 and 25, who had previously "flashed" their lights at him while he was standing at a traffic light.
He said that that night, while he was waiting for the green light, three young men got out of a white car, which he believes was a "Reno Clio" or "Peugeot 205", the shortest of whom had a gun in his hand. Perović, he said, tried to escape, but the man shot him in the left lower leg, after which the attackers returned to the vehicle and drove away from the scene.
In his statement, he also stated that he would not join the criminal prosecution of Danilo Mandić, "because there is no reason to," but that he would join the prosecution of the person who shot him, if he is identified.
Perović explained that he was at the "697" bar that evening, and that he was intoxicated and had consumed drugs.
He added that he had suffered threats and blackmail from the police to accuse Danilo Mandić of wounding him. The Police Department subsequently filed criminal charges against him for making a false report.
The second injured party witness, Aris Turković, claimed before the prosecutor on April 23 that he did not remember a single detail of the events of April 19 at dawn, when he was wounded, and that he only saw the injury when he woke up at home, but that he did not know how it occurred.
"I have a great relationship with Perović Darko and Mandić Danilo. We drank a lot of alcohol and at one point I felt sick. I know that someone took the car key and that I left the bar, and from that moment on I don't remember anything else. The next thing I remember is waking up at home and feeling pain in my leg. I didn't know what happened. The police came, and when they saw that I had an injury, they immediately took me to the KCCG for medical attention and they performed examinations there, and I had a foreign object left inside me. After the examinations were completed, I went to give a statement to the police and I said everything the same as I did today. That's all I remember," Turković told the prosecutor at the time. Responding to a question from prosecutor Jelena Protić, he said that no one put pressure on him, nor influenced what kind of statement he would give.
He also did not join the criminal prosecution against Mandić.
In May, the High Court extended Mandić's detention for another two months, and the Basic State Prosecutor's Office began hearings in a case regarding the possible misuse of the Parliament's official vehicle.
Meanwhile, the Parliament of Montenegro announced that Danilo Mandić was never employed by that institution.
In early June, the Higher State Prosecutor's Office announced that Mandić's actions did not meet the elements of the criminal offense of attempted aggravated murder, which is why the case was transferred to the Basic State Prosecutor's Office.
According to the statement, the evidence collected leads to suspicion of causing general danger, serious bodily harm, and the unauthorized possession and carrying of weapons and explosives.
In mid-August, Mandić's defense attorney informed the public that the Constitutional Court had accepted the constitutional appeal and found a violation of Danilo Mandić's right to liberty and security, assessing that there were not sufficiently specific and reliable reasons linking him to the commission of criminal offenses.
Bonus video:
