Retrial of defendants in Vidak Vujović murder begins: to clarify whether it was committed in a cruel manner

The retrial of the defendant Dražen P. Vojvodić, accused of the murder of Vidak Vujović in a cruel and treacherous manner and illegal possession of weapons, and Novica G. Đikanović, for the criminal offense of assisting the perpetrator after the commission of a criminal offense in conjunction with the criminal offense of illegal possession of weapons and explosives, has begun at the Higher Court in Podgorica. That is, after Vujović was killed, he, together with the defendant Vojvodić, set fire to his lifeless body.

The defendants again presented their defenses denying the allegations in the indictment.

The Court of Appeals of Montenegro accepted the appeals of the defense, attorney Damir Lekić, defense attorney of the accused Vojvodić, and attorney Aleksandra Rogošić and attorney Vidomir Bošković, defense attorneys of the accused Đikanović, and issued a decision revoking the first-instance verdict of the Higher Court.

"In the opinion of this court, the first-instance verdict lacks decisive facts regarding the cruel manner in which the injured party Vidak Vujović was deprived of his life. The first-instance court's conclusion that the accused took the life of the injured party in a cruel manner on the critical occasion is unclear," the reasoning for the ruling that overturned the verdict reads.

After the defendants presented their defense, the court acted on the grounds for revocation stated in the Court of Appeal's decision.

The court decided to hear expert witnesses Dr. Nemanja Radojević and Dr. Aleksandra Ražnatović at the next main trial hearing, scheduled for February 8, 2026. The court will request information from the Ministry of Interior whether the two police officers were employed at the time of the crime scene investigation.

The court's unclear conclusion that the defendant committed the murder in a cruel manner

In the decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the conviction, it is stated that, based on the appeal of the defense counsel of the accused Vojvodić, it is pointed out that the first instance court committed a significant violation of the provisions of criminal procedure because the verdict lacks reasons on decisive facts.

"The reasons given are completely unclear when it comes to the qualifying circumstances for which the accused was found guilty and convicted. The first instance court bases its conclusion that the accused Vojvodić cruelly deprived the injured party Vujović of his life on the actions taken by the accused on the critical occasion, which the first instance court established from the testimony of witness SJ and the statement of the expert psychiatrist Dr. Ražnatović Aleksandra.

Considering the facts arising from the contents of the autopsy report, the statement of the forensic expert Dr. Radojević Nemanja, and which facts were also the basis for the expert opinion by the ballistics expert and psychiatrist Aleksandra Ražnatović, who stated the intensity of the physical and mental pain suffered by the injured party, in the opinion of this court, the conclusion of the first-instance Higher Court that the defendant committed the murder in a cruel manner is unclear. This is because the medical expertise of the forensic expert and her oral statement indicates that all the injuries to the injured party were inflicted quickly one after the other, and that the order of infliction of the injuries cannot be determined, except that two gunshot wounds damaged the injured party's vital organs, such as the heart and lungs, which injuries could have caused death. However, in the reasoning of the verdict, the first instance court does not provide any reasons at all regarding the important fact, which concerns the duration of the mental pain and suffering that the injured party suffered on the critical occasion, so the first instance court's conclusion that the physical, mental pain and suffering of great intensity that the injured party undoubtedly suffered due to the objective experience of physical and life-threatening danger, as stated by the expert psychologist, in their duration exceed the framework of regular suffering when depriving a person of their life, in order to torment and exhaust the injured party, is unclear and arbitrary," the reasoning of the decision reads.

"The very fact that it follows from the consistent testimony of witness JS that on the video clip shown to her by the accused Vojvodić, in which she saw a guy lying on his side with his back turned, who moved his legs, who at one point said "don't" at which point she heard the accused Vojvodić laughing in the background of the clip, and then on the clip she heard a shot and saw the guy who was lying down being hit, is not sufficient, in the opinion of this court, to qualify the murder as cruel, because for such a qualification it is necessary that the victim in the specific case be inflicted immense, excessive pain and suffering over a longer period of time, namely pain and suffering that exceeds those accompanying ordinary murder (objective element of cruelty), for which decisive facts, the first instance court did not provide sufficient and clear reasons in the reasoning of the contested verdict," the ruling states.

On May 19, 2025, the defendant Vojvodić was sentenced to a single sentence of long-term imprisonment of 40 years for the murder of Vidak Vujović in a cruel and treacherous manner and for illegal possession of weapons. The defendant Đikanović was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for the criminal offense of “assisting the perpetrator after the commission of a criminal offense” in conjunction with the criminal offense of illegal possession of weapons and explosives.

The indictment states that on March 31, 2023, in the village of Šteke, in Podgorica, the defendant Dražen Vojvodić murdered Vujović Vidak in a treacherous and cruel manner, by luring the injured party, according to a previous agreement, to an uninhabited part of the village of Šteke, to an inaccessible place. By using their previous acquaintance, the defendant Vojvodić Dražen, drove the injured party to the scene in a "VW Golf V" vehicle, and when the injured party got out of the vehicle, in his direction, fired at least four projectiles from a "CZ M57" pistol, four of which hit him. In between the four projectiles fired, the injured party Vujović Vidak was alive and told the defendant "don't", during which time he suffered severe suffering and severe pain, which the defendant Vojvodić did not do, but continued to fire projectiles at the injured party. After which the defendant Vojvodić fired a projectile that caused fatal injuries to the injured party, which resulted in his death. After that, together with the defendant Đikanović, he poured gasoline on and set fire to the lifeless body of the injured party Vujović Vidak, and then left the scene together.

What should the High Court do in a retrial?

"In the retrial, the first-instance High Court will eliminate the significant violations of the provisions of criminal procedure indicated in this decision, re-hear the forensic medicine expert and the psychiatric expert on the circumstances of the duration of the mental pain and suffering that the injured party Vidak Vujović suffered on the critical occasion, engage a commission of experts to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination of the accused Dražen Vojvodić in order to determine the characterological characteristics of his personality. Then, obtain information from the competent authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the Police Administration whether the police officers VN and PI who took official actions in the form of conducting evidentiary actions in this case at the time they were taken were temporarily removed from their jobs. After which, through a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence presented, both individually and in relation to each other and their proper assessment with the proper application of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, it will be able to make a correct and lawful decision," the decision of the Court of Appeal states.