The Misdemeanor Court in Bijelo Polje - Berane Department has imposed an educational measure of increased parental supervision on two minors, lasting at least one month and a maximum of six months, for their impudent and insulting behavior towards "Vijesti" photojournalist Boris Pejović in the village of Gornje Zaostro near Berane on August 8 this year, during the removal of a memorial to Pavle Đurišić.
The court stated that it would later decide on the termination of the measure, and its implementation would be verified by the guardianship authority in Berane.
The minors were charged with an offense related to an incident when, according to the allegations in the request, they behaved in a brazen and insulting manner towards Pejović in a public place in Gornji Zaostar, calling him a “traitor” and demanding that he show or delete photographs of the removal of the monument, which he allegedly took with his phone. However, the court stated in its reasoning that it did not accept their defenses in which they denied the insults, assessing that they were made in order to avoid responsibility, and that they were refuted by the statements of the injured parties.
The court accepted as credible the statements of Pejović and the journalist of “Vijesti” Balša Rudović, who, according to the ruling, unanimously described that the two minors, together with another young man who was not present, hurled insults at them such as “Ustaše, faggots, spies and traitors”, with threats, and insisted that the photos be deleted. The ruling also states that one of the minors at one point snatched the phone from Pejović’s hand, asking for photos, and returned it after making sure that there were none. The court particularly emphasizes that the injured parties recognized the minors without hesitation, and that in their statements they mentioned the detail that they were wearing šajkače, which, as stated, was also confirmed by one of the minors.
In the same proceedings, the court acquitted three adult defendants, stating that it had not been proven that they had committed the offenses they were charged with.
Dušan Petrić and Drago Labović were acquitted, who were charged with threatening Pejović with the words “we have a photo, so we can find you more easily”. The court stated in its reasoning that the injured parties did not recognize them as the persons who threatened him or behaved inappropriately, and that their statements matched the defendants' defenses.
Vuka Došljak, who was charged with physically assaulting Pejović, “Vijesti” journalist Balša Rudović, and “Pobjeda” journalist Stevo Vasiljević, was also acquitted, with allegations that he grabbed them by the shoulders and took Vasiljević’s phone. The court states that it does not follow from the statements of Pejović and Rudović that Došljak physically assaulted them, while Vasiljević could not confirm with certainty whether Došljak was the one who hit him, stating that “maybe it was, maybe not” due to the crowd and the large number of people.
The court further assessed that the act of confiscating the phone, as described, does not contain the elements of an offence under Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Law on Public Order and Peace, as that article refers to physical assault, or contact. The court also stated that it could not itself change the factual description and legal qualification to a different offence, nor “add” elements such as the formulation that the defendant behaved insolently.
The decision also states that the injured parties were referred to civil proceedings in terms of property-law claims: Pejović in relation to the minors, and Pejović and Rudović in relation to the adult defendants. Vasiljević, as stated in the decision, did not file a property-law claim. The costs of the proceedings in the part in which the defendants were acquitted, as well as in the part relating to the minors, are borne by the court budget.
When imposing educational measures, the court considered as mitigating circumstances that the minors had not previously been punished for misdemeanors and that they were not considered to be persons prone to delinquent and antisocial behavior, with the assessment that increased parental supervision would be sufficient to influence their upbringing and prevent the repetition of the offense, with the warning that in the event of repetition, the court may impose a more severe sanction.
Bonus video:
