The Constitutional Court was entitled to assess that there was no reasonable doubt that Danilo Mandic committed the criminal acts charged against him, only in the context of the established violation of the right to liberty and security of that accused. However, if this is not the case, and that institution intervened in the interpretation of the evidence and concluded on the criminal (non)responsibility of Mandić, then this is an impermissible procedure.
So the lawyer Andrijana Razić For "Vijesti" he analyzes the decision of the Constitutional Court the day before yesterday, which accepted three detention appeals of Mandić (he mainly appealed against the decisions on the extension of detention), noting that in the case against him "the principle of special diligence in accordance with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights has not been satisfied", but also that "there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the criminal offenses he was charged with, or that the Basic and Higher Courts (both from Podgorica) did not provide sufficient arguments for that conclusion".
Mandić, nephew and informal bodyguard of the head of parliament Andrije Mandić, is on trial before the Basic Court on charges that he injured two people in Podgorica in late April last year, using a stolen parliamentary vehicle. He is charged with aggravated assault against a public danger, minor bodily harm, illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and vehicle seizure.
The acceptance of the appeals was supported by five judges - Snezana Armenko (President of the Constitutional Court), Desanka Lopičić, Momirka Tešić, Faruk Resulbegović i Jovan Jovanovic, while one - Nikola Mugoša, was against - the editorial team learns. Although they "raised their hand" in favor of accepting the appeals, Armenko and Tešić gave a so-called unanimous dissenting opinion due to the position that there was no reasonable doubt that Mandić was guilty, which was held by Lopičić, Resulbegović and Jovanović. The two of them, as announced by the Constitutional Court without naming the judges, assessed that it is not up to that institution to examine whether the courts' reasoning satisfies the level necessary for reasonable doubt, "unless the reasoning has no argument".
As for Mugoša, who remained the only one to vote against, according to unofficial information from the newspaper, he said at the session that the decision in which the court assessed that there was not enough evidence for reasonable suspicion - made him decide to vote against it, because he believes that the assessment of evidence is the jurisdiction of the regular court, and that the Constitutional Court can only review whether there is a violation of human rights and freedoms in cases where the court's reasoning is obviously arbitrary. He therefore claimed that the Constitutional Court had assumed jurisdiction that did not belong to it.
The Constitutional Court rarely deals with the review of reasonable suspicion, as confirmed to "Vijesti" and from that institution. Mostly, as lawyers explained to the editorial staff, it only checks whether there is a basic explanation for it (the hearings for the review of the indictment before the High Court are analogous to this), and therefore does not engage in the evaluation of evidence, because that would, in fact, take on the role of regular courts.
However, the decision of the day before yesterday raises precisely this question: did the Constitutional Court present evidence in the Mandić case, instead of simply determining whether his human rights and freedoms were violated? After that question, another, more important one arises: what should the Basic Court, which is conducting the proceedings against Mandić, do now, if the Constitutional Court, as a high court, has practically "ruled" - that the accused is not guilty?
Razić: They are not forbidden to decide on guilt, but...
Noting that she is not a participant in the proceedings - and therefore not familiar with Mandić's appeals and the decision of the Constitutional Court - Andrijana Razić states that the Law on the Constitutional Court does not explicitly stipulate that, when deciding on an appeal, it should not enter into the merits of the matter, that is, decide on the possible guilt of the applicant.
Such a position, says the interviewee, has been crystallized by the practice of the Constitutional Court, and it is, she claims, logical, proper and lawful, "since the Constitutional Court does not fall into the category of 'regular courts'".
"Otherwise, such action would inevitably mean going beyond the framework of his constitutional and legal competences," Razić points out.
However, she points out that, if the Constitutional Court reviewed the merits of the matter in the context of the conclusion that the regular courts (in decisions on detention) did not provide the defendant with relevant and sufficient reasons for the existence of a well-founded suspicion that he had committed a criminal offense - then, according to her, such a "step forward" by the Constitutional Court is not unlawful and does not constitute an excess of its jurisdiction.
This, as Razić explains, is because the existence of reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed a criminal offense is a conditio sine qua non (a condition without which one cannot do without) for any determination and duration of detention, so, she adds, this fundamental prerequisite must be well-reasoned and sufficiently explained in the decisions.
If, he says, the Constitutional Court has determined that this is not the case in this particular case, then, he claims, Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security) has inevitably been violated, so the Constitutional Court, in order to provide a quality explanation for such a conclusion in its decision, "certainly must in some way address the issue of the existence of reasonable suspicion of the guilt of the defendant Mandić."
"So, the only question here is whether the Constitutional Court in this specific case gave its reasoning in the context of the established violation of the right to liberty and security of the defendant, or whether it clearly went into the analysis and interpretation of the evidence and concluded that the defendant was criminally (non)responsible. The former is permissible, the latter is not - and there is a thin and very subtle line between the two," Razić underlines.
"Vijesti" consulted several other lawyers on this issue, but they said that, due to the complexity of the topic, they could not speak officially. However, they said unofficially that they believe that the Constitutional Court is not prohibited from dealing with the issue of reasonable doubt, but that it should not go into the details of the grounds.
One interviewee stated that grounds for suspicion are a prerequisite for someone to be arrested, and that this is investigated first, because no one can be deprived of their liberty if there is no basis for suspicion of a criminal offense.
Rarely questioned reasonable suspicion
What exactly the Constitutional Court did in the Mandić case and whether it "extracted" evidence will become clearer after the decision on accepting the three appeals is drafted and published. According to unofficial information from the editorial office, the draft decision of the rapporteur judges (Jovanović and Resulbegović) discusses at length the evidence - the allegedly stolen official vehicle of the Parliament, the video surveillance footage, DNA traces... - and states that it was evaluated arbitrarily.
When asked why the Constitutional Court dealt with reasonable suspicion, whether it had done so before (if so - when), and whether this move was interfering with the jurisdiction of other courts, the institution recalled how the vote was held the day before yesterday, and stated that, by separating their opinions, Armenko and Tešić (they did not mention their names) emphasized that they remain "completely consistent with their professional position, which is the position of the Constitutional Court expressed in all decisions made by the Detention Chamber, and previously in other chambers - that the Constitutional Court, when examining the reasons for ordering and extending detention, does not assess the degree of reasonable suspicion and does not overturn court decisions on ordering and extending detention by assessing evidence that (does not) justify its (non)existence".
"Except in a situation where there is absolutely no explanation regarding the reasonable suspicion. This is especially true given the fact that the Constitutional Court's unchanged position is that the decision confirming the indictment is not subject to constitutional review where the reasonable suspicion is directly decided, so it is unacceptable for the Constitutional Court to establish jurisdiction to assess reasonable suspicion through decisions on ordering and extending detention," they stated.
The Constitutional Court also provided the newspaper with several excerpts from their decisions, which show that they did not address the issue of the existence of reasonable suspicion.
"In this regard, the Constitutional Court recalls that the 'quantity' of facts and evidence that support a reasonable doubt, or rather the conclusion on reasonable doubt, is within the jurisdiction of regular courts, and therefore it is not for the Constitutional Court to examine whether the given reasoning satisfies this level, unless the reasoning itself is not arbitrary," it reads in one of the decisions.
The court announced that in the last five years, they have only reviewed reasonable suspicion in two cases.
"And in the cases 'K.' and 'D.', where, in the opinion of the then composition of the Court, the nature of the case required it," they added.
It is about cases Budimir i Marine Krstović (finally acquitted of smuggling more than a ton of cocaine) and a freight forwarder from Bar Djoka Drobnjak (acquitted of charges of being responsible for cocaine smuggling from Ecuador to Montenegro).
DON'T MISS IT
Into "action" with a company vehicle?
Danilo Mandić is suspected of wounding in the center of the capital on April 19th last year. Darko Perović i Aris TurkovićThe Police Department claims that Mandić blocked the path of Perović and Turković with the official vehicle of the parliament, a Range Rover jeep, and fired "several shots at them, which injured the injured parties in the leg area"... The Podgorica Prosecutor's Office claims that Mandić stole the official vehicle of the parliament.
The opposition Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and Social Democrats (SD) filed an initiative in early May 2025 to dismiss Andrija Mandić due to an incident in which his nephew allegedly participated, using an official vehicle, which was discussed in parliament in early June, but the proposal to dismiss the head of the highest legislative chamber did not "pass". His dismissal was supported by 20 MPs, while 41 were against.
In addition to the proposal for dismissal, DPS and SD, along with the Civic Movement URA, submitted an initiative to the Parliamentary Committee for Security and Defense at the end of April for a control hearing of the Supreme State Prosecutor. Milorad Marković and the Director of the Police Administration Lazar ŠćepanovićThe hearing on this occasion was held on July 21, but without the presence of Marković, who then informed the parliament that he would not attend the session, and in a letter he pointed out that, among other things, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office is not subject to oversight by the Security Committee.
Šćepanović then claimed that the proceedings had determined who was using the vehicle and who had the authorization, and that this information was in the prosecutor's office. He reiterated that Danilo Mandić is not employed by the Police Directorate, and that he did not know what his legal employment status was in the Parliament.
"Vijesti" wrote at the end of May that the nephew of the head of parliament was never employed or engaged in any other capacity in the Service of the highest legislative house.
Therefore, the question arises as to how he was allegedly able to steal the parliament vehicle.
DON'T MISS IT
Jovanović: Conditions have been met for Mandić to be released
Danilo Mandić's defense attorney, lawyer Miroja Jovanović, said that after the Constitutional Court's decision, all conditions have been met for the nephew of the Speaker of the Parliament to be released.
Although he believes that the Basic Court has grounds and is "acting proactively" in this case, he is not optimistic that it will do so, and announces that he will contact the competent courts on Monday to act in accordance with the position of the Constitutional Court.
"If it is according to the letter of the law, the Basic Court in Podgorica should request the documents from the Constitutional Court as of today (yesterday) and, as soon as possible, adapt its proceedings to the instance that is five steps above the Basic Court...", Jovanović told Television Vijesti yesterday.
He states that he will write to three addresses on Monday.
"The Higher Court - an appeal is being filed, the Basic Court - a request to terminate the detention, and the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica - a request to review its actions in this case and a call to consider everything in the file with due care when he (Mandić) is not charged by a single witness, when he is not charged by a single forensic trace... Then it is very logical for everyone to ask why this procedure is being conducted," said Jovanović.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
