Indictment confirmed for Banjska case, Milan Radoičić first on the list of accused

The indictment of the Special Prosecution of Kosovo includes 44 individuals and one legal entity

13336 views 7 comment(s)
Milan Radoičić, Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Petrit Rrahmani
Milan Radoičić, Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Petrit Rrahmani
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

The Basic Court in Pristina has issued a decision rejecting as unfounded the requests to dismiss the indictment and challenge the evidence in the “Banjska” case. The requests were filed by the defense of Vladimir Tolić, Dušan Maksimović and Blagoje Spasojević against the indictment of the Special Prosecutor's Office of Kosovo.

The indictment of the Special Prosecutor's Office, filed on September 11, 2024, for the Banjska case, accuses 44 individuals and one legal entity, "RAD DOO". The list of defendants is headed by Milan Radoičić, Kossev reports.

So far, the following have been arrested and are under detention in this case: Blagoje Spasojević, Vladimir Tolić and Dušan Maksimović, against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated.

At the first hearing, on October 9, 2024, the three defendants pleaded not guilty. After that, the defense used the 30-day deadline to challenge the evidence and request the dismissal of the indictment.

The lawyer for the accused Tolić, Miloš Delević, filed an objection on November 5, 2024, emphasizing that at this stage of the criminal proceedings, there are conditions for the indictment to be dismissed in its entirety, because there is no evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that his client committed a criminal offense.

According to lawyer Delević, the SPRK did not specify any action that was used to commit the criminal offense.

"...so, it is not clear whether my client was a leader, perpetrator, assistant or instigator. Although we had a year to investigate this case, many witnesses were heard, that answer was not reached," Delević is quoted as saying in the complaint.

Also, it is stated that the Prosecution did not specify the responsibilities of the participants.

"The only basis on which the SPRK connects my client to the crimes he is accused of is that he was in uniform and was seriously wounded on the critical day, while his role is completely unknown to the court, the defense, and the public. Therefore, this indictment does not meet the legal requirements for consideration at a court hearing," Delević is quoted as saying in the objection.

Therefore, the lawyer requested that the indictment against Vladimir Tolić be dismissed as unfounded or that it be returned to the SPRK for amendments or that a hearing be scheduled and held to consider and assess this request.

The lawyer for the accused Spasojević, Ljubomir Pantović, in his objection filed on 4 November 2024, among other things, emphasizes that there is no reasonable doubt in the indictment against his client and the other accused. According to him, there is no acceptable evidence that Spasojević committed the criminal offense he is charged with.

It is alleged that the actions of the accused were not specified, and the legal qualification of the criminal offenses is also disputed.

"The only thing that can connect my client to the actions described in this part of the SPRK indictment is that he was arrested at the scene of the incident on the critical day, but that is not enough to support a reasonable suspicion that he committed the criminal offense he is accused of, and what is missing in this case is an actual description of the actions specifically committed by this accused," Pantović is quoted as saying in his objection.

Pantović claims in his objection that the indictment is flawed and incomplete. Therefore, he requested that the indictment against his client be dismissed or that a hearing be scheduled and held to consider and assess this request.

The defense attorney of the accused Maksimović, Jovana Filipović, in her motion to dismiss the indictment filed on November 4, 2024, among other things, pointed out that the Prosecution's positions in the indictment against her client were unfounded and based on assumptions, and that they did not support with any evidence the reasonable suspicion that Maksimović committed the criminal offenses he is charged with.

"The SPRK has not proven in any case that my client had any connection to the event that occurred in Banjska on September 24, 2023, other than that he lives in the same village, and there is no other evidence related to the specific suspect," Jovanović is quoted as saying in the request.

It is alleged that the SPRK filed the indictment without previously establishing the factual circumstances and in violation of the provisions of the CCRK.

"...the indictment is based solely on assumptions and extensive witness statements, all of which contradict the evidence, given that the evidence established that the defendant's DNA does not match any of the items. It was established that he did not shoot on the critical day and that he was not exposed to gunpowder particles," the objection is quoted, with which Filipović requested that the SPRK indictment be dismissed.

On the other hand, the State Prosecutor, in his response to the defense's requests, filed on November 19, 2024, emphasizes that the defense's claims are unfounded and not in accordance with the factual situation.

"...the defense must bear in mind that at this stage of the proceedings, evidence is assessed in two parallel aspects: admissibility and probability only in relation to the existence of a well-founded suspicion, which means that the latter requires establishing the fact whether an objective observer would be convinced that the indictment is supported by the evidence for the circumstances under which it is alleged that the criminal offence was committed, and that well-founded suspicion arises from that evidence. Otherwise, at this stage of the proceedings, there can be no assessment of the evidence in relation to the circumstances of the aspect of guilt," the prosecutor's response is quoted as saying.

It is also emphasized that the evidence was collected legally by the prosecution and the police. It is also stated that the indictment is supported by evidence for the circumstances under which the alleged crimes were committed.

"The evidence proposed in the indictment, whether material or personal, confirms the beginnings of organized structures (of which the three defendants are a part), preparations, and an attack on the critical day," the prosecutor is quoted as saying in his response.

In response to the defense's objections, the prosecutor also emphasized that the conditions for dismissing the indictment under Article 248 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia were not met. Thus, the state prosecutor requested that the defense's requests be dismissed as unfounded.

In this regard, the Court determined that the evidence on which the indictment is based was collected legally and that there is no evidence that could be inadmissible or that was collected contrary to the legal provisions of the Criminal Procedure.

Also, the Basic Court's decision states that although the defense submissions raised general objections regarding the evidence, no specific objection was raised for the specific evidence proposed in the indictment to be declared inadmissible.

Also, the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence is admissible and can be conducted in a judicial review, and that there is no element that would call into question the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Constitution, stating that there is no legal basis for any evidence to be excluded as inadmissible.

However, regarding the defense's claims that the Prosecution did not argue what the roles of the accused were, or whether they were perpetrators, aides or instigators of the accused in relation to other accused, the Court finds that these claims are unfounded, because at this stage of the proceedings this cannot be considered, given that the degree of substantiation of the indictment by evidence at this stage of the proceedings is a reasonable doubt.

As for the proposal of lawyer Delevic to return the indictment for amendment, the Court states in its decision that these objections are unfounded.

According to the Court's assessment, based on the material evidence proposed by the Prosecution in the indictment, there is reasonable suspicion that the accused committed the criminal offense they are charged with.

"The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the defendants' defense regarding the challenge of evidence and the request to dismiss the indictment and concluded that the prosecution succeeded in substantiating reasonable suspicion that the defendants committed the criminal offenses they are charged with," the decision states.

Bonus video: