The session of the panel regarding the appeal of the Special State Prosecutor's Office against the acquittal in the "State Coup" case concluded today at the Court of Appeals of Montenegro, at which the defense lawyers proposed that it be confirmed.
The panel is chaired by Judge Vesna Moštrokol, the rapporteur is Judge Zorica Milanović, and the panel member is Judge Predrag Tabaš.
Judge Milanović, the rapporteur in the case, read out the main points of the responses of the defendants' defense counsel to the appeal of the SDT, who proposed that the first-instance verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica be confirmed.
The Special Chamber, presided over by Judge Zoran Radović at the Higher Court in Podgorica, delivered a verdict on July 12, 2024, acquitting all the defendants of the criminal offenses of creating a criminal organization, attempted terrorism, and attempted terrorism through incitement, i.e. that on the day of the parliamentary elections, October 16, 2016, they intended to use violence and armed force to storm the Parliament of Montenegro and declare the victory of the Democratic Front.
Lawyer Radonja Drakulović, the official defense attorney of one of the most famous defendants in this trial, Eduard Šišmakov, proposed that the Court of Appeal reject the SDT's appeal as unfounded and that the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica be confirmed.
"Because there was no significant violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code /CPC/, because the factual situation was completely correctly established and the substantive law was correctly applied to such established factual situation," he stated in his response to the appeal.
Other defense attorneys for the defendants, attorneys Nada Peković, and attorneys Miroje Jovanović, Dušan Radosavljević, Dražen Medojević, Vaso Bečanović, Nikola Medojević, Dušan Jovović, Mladen Dubak, Đorđije Bulatović and Dalibor Tomović, stated in their responses to the SDT's appeal that the first-instance court provided clear and valid reasons and proposed that the acquittal be confirmed.
DON'T MISS IT
Yesterday, the court read the reasoning of the first-instance verdict, which assessed the statements of the associate witness Saša Sinđelić and witness Mirko Paja Velimirović as illogical and not confirmed by anything that it was planned to use violence and armed forces to storm the Parliament of Montenegro and declare the victory of the Democratic Front.
"The court found that the evidence presented did not prove that the accused committed the acts for which they were charged. The court assessed the evidentiary significance of the testimony of the cooperating witness Saša Sinđelić in accordance with the provisions of Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which stipulates that the court cannot declare a person guilty solely on the basis of evidence obtained through the testimony of a cooperating witness."
The verdict states that the only meeting between Sinđelić, Šišmakov and the defendant Popov took place in Belgrade, that they walked through Kalemegdan, but that no money was handed over. The court assessed the statements of Sinđelić and Mirko Paja Velimirović as unconvincing, contradictory and illogical, especially in the part about the purchase of weapons and their delivery to Montenegro, which would be used by members of the criminal organization to shoot at members of the Montenegrin police, and then to seize the Parliament of Montenegro.
"There is no evidence that Mirko Velimirović acquired the weapons and that they were transported to Montenegro," the verdict states.
"It has not been proven that there were weapons and an armed incursion into the Parliament of Montenegro with the accused Bratislav Dikić, and that 50 members would shoot at the police, liquidate them, and then deprive Milo Đukanović of his liberty. It has not been proven that Velimirović bought weapons, then disassembled them and threw them into the lake. He did not take photographs of himself buying weapons, nor did Velimirović take photographs of the place where he threw the weapons into the lake, nor are there any witnesses, so it cannot be established that he bought weapons from Fadilj. It is concluded that it has not been proven that Eduard Šišmakov and Vladimir Popov organized a criminal organization. It has not been confirmed that Šišmakov and Popov were the creators of the criminal plan and provided the money, the acquittal verdict states, among other things.
Democratic Front leaders Andrija Mandić and Milan Knežević were acquitted by the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica of charges of membership in a criminal organization. Russian citizens Eduard Šišmakov and Vladimir Popov were also acquitted of charges of committing the criminal offense of “attempted terrorism”. Former Gendarmerie Commander Bratislav Dikić was acquitted of the criminal offenses of attempted terrorism by aiding and abetting and creating a criminal organization. Predrag Bogićević and Nemanja Ristić were also acquitted of the same criminal offenses. Branka Milić, Dragan Maksić, Srboljub Đorđević and Milan Dušić, citizens of Serbia, were acquitted of charges, as well as Mihailo Čađenović.
The defendants Maksić, Đorđević and Dušić were charged with having, together with Branka Milić, been tasked with inciting riots and conflicts, attacking the police, and illegally and violently entering the Parliament of Montenegro and other institutions, which is why they came to Montenegro from Serbia by train.
Bečanović: The court correctly concluded that there was no evidence that Srboljub Đorđević should have attacked members of the Montenegrin Police Administration
The defense attorney of the defendant Srboljub Đorđević, attorney Vaso Bečanović, in response to the appeal of the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) filed against the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica, stated that the first-instance verdict acquitted the defendant Đorđević of the charge of committing a criminal act by a criminal organization.
"According to the defense, all allegations in the SDT's appeal are unfounded and do not in any way cast doubt on the established factual situation, i.e. the decision acquitting the defendant of the charges. The first-instance court, in deciding this criminal matter, presented all the necessary evidence and determined everything that could be of influence down to the smallest detail. The Special State Prosecutor's Office points out in its appeal that in relation to the defendant Srboljub Đorđević, the evidence presented established that all the actions with which he was charged were taken with the defendants Branko Milić, Dragan Maksić and Milan Dušić, because the defenses of these defendants were changed and adapted to each other during the proceedings, all with the aim of avoiding guilt. However, the court correctly noted that there was no direct evidence that would confirm these allegations," Bečanović stated in his response to the SDT's appeal.
He added that the defendant Srboljub Đorđević, "was charged with causing riots, conflicts and attacking officials - members of the Police Administration of Montenegro, illegally and violently entering the Parliament of Montenegro and other institutions, with which task he arrived in Podgorica by train on 15 October 2016, when he was deprived of his liberty together with them, and after the alleged prior engagement of the defendant Maksić Dragan by Milan Pavasović Čaruga, who allegedly accepted the presented criminal plan".
"I emphasize that Milan Pavasović Čaruga is not included in the indictment as a member of a criminal organization who, in that capacity, could present a criminal plan that the defendant Srboljub Đorđević and the other defendants would have accepted. This is especially true given the fact that during the evidentiary proceedings, no evidence was presented from which it could be established that Milan Pavasović Čaruga was finally convicted as a member of a criminal organization and who could then present the criminal plan to other members of the criminal organization, specifically the defendant Srboljub Đorđević. The allegations in the indictment were not confirmed by the testimony of the cooperating witness, Saša Sinđelić, who essentially pointed out that the people hired who were supposed to come from Serbia to Montenegro and take part on the day of the parliamentary elections were not terrorists and that they were not supposed to use weapons," Bečanović said.
He also stated that it also follows from the testimony of witness Mirko Velimirović that he has no knowledge of any kind as to why they came to Podgorica that day, referring to the defendants Srboljub Đorđević, Milan Dušić, Dragan Maksić and Branka Milić, because they were not "his people".
"From this, it is clear why the defendant Srboljub Đorđević and the defendants Milan Dušić, Dragan Maksić and Branka Milić were in Montenegro that day, and that is that it is about their personal right and freedom of movement," says lawyer Bečanović.
He adds that given the fact that no evidence was presented that supports the allegations in the indictment, it is clear that the defendant Srboljub Đorđević did not know, nor could he have known, about the alleged criminal plan relating to conflicts and attacks on officials of the Police Directorate.
"During the proceedings, the prosecution failed to prove, or to make it probable, that the defendant Srboljub Đorđević, as a member of a criminal organization, made a profit, which profit must be made both for the organizer of the criminal organization and for the members, which, in addition to power, represents one of the mandatory conditions for the existence of a criminal organization under Article 401 a, paragraph 6 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro and is also the most easily proven element. The Special State Prosecutor's Office points out in its appeal that the court allegedly incompletely established the factual situation, but does not offer new evidence that would challenge the court's conclusions," said Bečanović.
He also said that the court had analyzed in detail all the proposed evidence, including contradictory testimonies.
"Furthermore, it is not and should not be the duty of the court to compensate for the shortcomings of the prosecution. If the evidence leaves room for doubt, the court must issue an acquittal in accordance with the principle of 'in dubio pro reo'. The defense believes that the verdict is sufficiently reasoned. The prosecution's appeal does not point to legal or factual shortcomings in the verdict, but to disagreement with the assessment of the evidence, so the court acted in accordance with the law, strictly respecting the principle of legality and the right to a fair trial. The first-instance court in its decision convincingly, systematically and in accordance with the state of affairs resulting from the conducted proceedings, properly established all decisive facts and, based on such a determination, correctly applied substantive law, so I propose that the Court of Appeal of Montenegro reject the appeal as unfounded," Bečanović stated in his response to the SDT's appeal.
Bonus video:
