Kidnapping, beatings, slaps, threats with knives and guns... - this is part of the hell that several illegal migrants from Pakistan went through, who illegally crossed the Montenegrin border, after which smugglers locked them in the basement of a house in Podgorica, extorting money from their families.
They were rescued by Podgorica police officers, who, acting on operational information, found and arrested members of an organized criminal group from Afghanistan in the basement of the house on September 1st. RM (26) A. U. (22) and a seventeen-year-old.
So far, their victims have been identified as five Pakistani citizens, two of whom are minors.
The kidnapping was reported to them by one of the migrants, who managed to escape from the basement where they were locked and abused.
Twenty-two-year-old AU was remanded in custody at the beginning of December, on suspicion of committing the crime of kidnapping in conjunction with the crime of human smuggling, as was RM, who is five years older.
The court documents, which "Vijesti" had access to, cite statements from injured migrants, who said that the kidnappers threatened them with a gun and a knife and said that if they did not pay the money, they would cut off their ears with a knife and kill them with a gun.
The Court of Appeal included these allegations in the reasoning of the decision by which it rejected the defense's appeals and confirmed the extension of detention for the defendants AU and RM. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeals of their defense attorneys as unfounded, assessing that the Higher Court in Podgorica provided sufficient, clear and valid reasons for the extension of detention. The second-instance court states that the reasonable suspicion arises from several statements by the injured parties, which describe a pattern - illegal border crossing, arrival at the accommodation, then locking them up and extorting money.
SLAPPING, THREATS, SLAVERY...
Kidnapped Pakistani WA He told investigators that he came to Montenegro on August 29th, illegally, across the border with Albania, and that he was accompanied by two other friends. I. i Z. as well as one of the kidnappers whose nickname he only knew.
He also said that their final destination was supposed to be Italy, and that from Montenegro they planned to move to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then further...
He also explained who he arranged to transfer them to Montenegro through and for how much money, but also how, after they entered the country illegally, they were taken to their accommodation by taxi:
“...He explained that when they arrived at the accommodation, SJ (a false name of one of the kidnappers) was already at the accommodation. SJ and J. asked them to pay them the money, because they had illegally transferred them from A. to Montenegro. He paid, or rather his brother did it, while he was at the accommodation, because SJ and J. told him that they would not let them out of the accommodation until their family paid them... Before his brother paid them the money, SJ and J. beat him, as well as his two friends, by hitting them in the face with open palms, and also threatened to kill them if their families did not pay them...”.
He also said that they were locked in and were not allowed, nor could they, to come out, even though they asked to.
It was also explained that the smugglers falsely introduced themselves to them - as J. and SJ, but the police established their identities.
They were not released from the locked basement even after the migrant families paid the requested money, but instead demanded more, "in order to free them."
It didn't help that one of the migrants had a key to the accommodation, because he was afraid of being beaten if he unlocked the others.
"That person was scared and didn't dare give them the key to get out. When the person who had the key fell asleep, a migrant named U. took advantage of his carelessness, took the key from him, opened the door, ran away and notified the police. The person who had the key left the accommodation twice with the help of that key, at the call of M. and AG. At their call, he had to go out. J. had a knife, while SJ had a gun, and the two of them threatened him and his friends Z. and I.. They threatened the three of them with a gun and a knife, telling them that if they didn't pay money, they would cut off their ears with a knife and kill them with a gun," he said, as well as the other migrants who testified.
THEY TOOK THEIR MONEY AND PHONES
They told investigators that the kidnappers searched them when they drove them to their accommodation and took away the money they had on them.
In addition to money, they also took away their phones and gave them to them only so they could ask their families for money.
According to the documents, the injured party, WA, stated that they asked him for additional money and said "they would not let them out of the accommodation until the family paid them", and that they beat him and his friends "by hitting them in the face with open palms".
The same statement also states that the threats were made with weapons: "J. had a knife, while SJ had a gun," the injured parties claim, repeating threats of tearing off ears and murder...
Similar claims, according to court documents, were made by the injured party. ME who said that SJ threatened to beat them if the families did not pay the additional money, and that he had a gun and said that he would "kill them with that gun" if the families did not pay the requested amount. He was also threatened, he claims, "with having his ear torn off."
Third injured party - ZU - according to the court decision, they claim that they were "mistreated for about five days", hit with "closed and open fists", that they could not leave because the apartment "was locked", and that they demanded money from the families "for their freedom", with threats that they would "take them to the forest and kill them".
"AG and R. told them that if the families did not pay they would take them to the forest and kill them," he told ZU investigators.
The injured party, MA, told investigators that "the knife in AG's hands was large, about 15-20 cm long, while the gun in RM's hands was black."
In its explanation, the Court of Appeal also cites the contents of the official notes of the Police Directorate, which mention operational information obtained via the WhatsApp application, location coordinates, and claims that the injured parties were held captive "in the basement".
One note states that the injured parties were shown photos of the suspects, after which they reacted by "shouting" and referring to the gun with the words "gun gun", gesturing with their hands as if explaining that they were tied up.
"When the victims of the aforementioned crimes were taken into custody, they were shown a photo of a person known to the police officers as SJ (who introduced himself to the police officers as MR), a photo of UA and AG, and through physical reactions, shouts and in English, which one of the victims used, they stated that these were the people who had extorted money from them, also mentioning a gun, saying 'gun gun' and gesticulating with their hands, holding them together in an attempt to explain that they were tied up, and the reaction specifically referred to SJ and AG," the court documents state.
The Court recalls that at this stage of the proceedings, evidence is assessed only to the level of reasonable doubt, respecting the presumption of innocence, and that the question of whether the defendants actually committed the criminal offense will be determined in the further course of the proceedings.
Apart from reasonable suspicion, the court assessed that there was still a legal basis for detention - the risk of flight.
He cites the gravity of the crimes and the punishments that can be expected as reasons, as well as the personal circumstances of the defendants - that they are "without permanent employment, unmarried, without children, without a registered place of residence... as well as the fact that they are foreign citizens."
In the court's opinion, these circumstances, taken as a whole, constitute circumstances that justify the fear of flight and hiding.
The Court of Appeal also addressed the argument of the defense of the defendant UA that his travel and identification documents were taken away, so that escape was not realistic, but found this allegation unfounded, concluding that the purpose of ensuring the presence of the defendants could not be achieved with milder measures.
The court concluded that the first-instance decision did not violate the defendants' rights under the Constitution and the European Convention, and that the other allegations in the appeal did not affect a different decision.
Bonus video:
