Искра
14th December 2009, 14:05
Author:Vesna Rakic Vodinelic
Source: Pescanik net (http://www.pescanik.net/content/view/4146/90/), Dec 07 2009
Recently, the charges were pressed against Ratibor Trivunac, Tadej
Kurepa, Ivan Vulovic, Ivan Savic, Nikola Mitrovic and Sanja Dojkic,
which assert that they committed an act of international terrorism,
defined in the clause 391 in the Serbian Criminal Law (CL). According to
the charges, the defendants are members of the Anarcho-syndicalist
Initiative. In addition, the defendants have been kept in custody since
September 3rd 2009 and Leonora Cvijovic, a Deputy District Public
Prosecutor, asked for their custody to be extended until the first court
proceeding. Her request was approved.
The criminal proceedings, the fact that the defendants have been kept in
custody for longer than three months, the events that are related to
what they are accused of, as well as other similar charges and criminal
acts in Serbia, show that the prosecution, but also the courts,
discriminate in a grave and dangerous way against the defendants in
comparison to others who were accused or are potentially accused for
committing similar criminal acts.
Therefore, it is important to explain in what ways this is the case of
discrimination.
1. Firstly, discrimination is related to the fact that the defendants
were placed into a pre-trial custody, which was then extended twice so
it has lasted more than three months. The reasons for placing someone
into, and extending, custody are defined in the clause 142 in the
Serbian Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). According to the accusation, a
reason for placing the defendants into, and extending their, custody lie
in the alleged “special circumstances which suggest that the defendants
will repeat a criminal act, or will complete an attempted criminal act,
or that they will realize their threat to commit a criminal act” (clause
142, paragraph 1, point 3, CPA). However, in the part of the accusation
where the Deputy District Public Prosecutor asks for the extension of
the custody there is not a single word about “special circumstances”
which suggest that the accused would repeat the criminal act they
committed, or that they would complete it or that they would realize a
threat to commit another criminal act. Neither is there anything about
the “special circumstances” in the rest of the accusation.
On the contrary, the accusation shows that the defendants denied that
they committed the criminal act, and their quotes in the accusation do
not lead to a conclusion that they would repeat the same act or commit
another. Moreover, the deputy prosecutor points out that the motive for
the attack against the Embassy of Greece was to show support for a
citizen of Greece, Theodoros Iliopoulos (named inventively as Teodis
Iliopunos by the prosecution) who was on hunger strike at the time when
the alleged crime was committed. After forty-nine days of hunger strike,
Iliopoulos was released from prison (together with other Greek citizens
who were arrested because of the demonstrations in December 2008), so
the claim that the defendants might repeat the act sounds more like
science fiction than like reality. This is so because the reason for
repeating the act does not exist any more. (The release of Iliopoulos
from prison is a well-known fact which can be easily confirmed through a
search via Google or another search machine. It can be found in Serbian
sources as well.)
If we look at the other reasons for keeping someone in custody, which
are defined in the clause 142 CPA, it is clear that such reasons do not
exist here. The defendants are not in hiding; their identity is not
unknown; there is no danger of destroying evidence or hindering the
gathering of evidence given that the accusation has already been legally
enforced; nor did the defendants avoid appearing in court for the
proceedings (although, they were not able to avoid that). Finally, by
pointing to the particular clause, paragraph and point, the reason for
keeping someone in custody is defined in such a way that “special
circumstances” must be specified. But the accusation does not explain them.
For all these reasons, it can be concluded that the prosecution and the
court were guided by the reasons which are not legal when they decided
to place the accused into custody and extend it. Given that a foreign
country suffered damage by the criminal proceedings, it is not difficult
to prove that their reasons were political. The court, and any other
state agency, that acts according to political criteria, engages in a
political trial and negates the right to a fair and just trial, which is
guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, as well as in the Serbian Constitution.
But why is this a case of discrimination? This is discrimination because
some accused are placed into custody even without legal reasons in
Serbia, while others are not. The first are discriminated against,
whereas the second are privileged. To prove this, we need not look into
the distant past. Several days ago, a television programme Insider,
shown on TV B92, informed the public about individuals who were charged
with violent criminal proceedings, but who were not placed in custody at
all, or if they were, then they were held in custody only for a few
days. Here are several quotes from the B92 website:
“Djordje Prelic, born in 1985, is a leader of a group of Partisan
football club’s supporters called ‘Alcatraz’. According to the data,
which we acquired owing to the Freedom of Information Act, Djordje
Prelic was charged more than twenty times for various criminal matters
in the last several years. So far, most of these charges have not
resulted in final verdicts. When he escaped from Serbia after he had
killed Brice Taton, Ivica Dacic, the Serbian Minister of Police informed
the public that Prelic is a well-known drug dealer. It is still unclear
how it has been possible for him to remain free.”
“Criminal charges were pressed against Vavic in January 2005, when he
was arrested under suspicion that he inflicted grave injuries on Stefan
Gajic and Darko Kuric by stabbing them. However, he was released only a
day later after the consultations with Nebojsa Bojic, a judge of the
Fifth Municipal Court. The charges were filed with the District
Prosecution in a regular way. Replying officially to the questions of
the programme Insider, the District Prosecution said that the trial was
suspended.”
“The same is the case with the groups of supporters of the football club
Red Star. For example, Velibor Dunjic, a leader of Red Star’s
supporters, was arrested only recently under a suspicion of committing a
murder. However, he has been repeatedly charged with grave criminal acts
over a long period of time, but almost none of the trials reached
completion. That is how it was possible that he was eventually charged
even with an attempted murder. Velibor Dunjic, “Velja”, is twenty-four
and is a leader of a group of Red Star’s supporters called ‘Belgrade
Boys’. Many people explained his aggressive, and often unpunished,
behavior by pointing at the fact that his father was a retired police
officer. Dunjic, himself, often threatened police officers with his
father when he was arrested. According to Insider’s research, since 2009
nineteen charges were pressed against Dunjic, which accused him of
committing at least thirty-one criminal matters. Dunjic was still free
and in April 2008 he was charged with an attempted murder.”
Source: Pescanik net (http://www.pescanik.net/content/view/4146/90/), Dec 07 2009
Recently, the charges were pressed against Ratibor Trivunac, Tadej
Kurepa, Ivan Vulovic, Ivan Savic, Nikola Mitrovic and Sanja Dojkic,
which assert that they committed an act of international terrorism,
defined in the clause 391 in the Serbian Criminal Law (CL). According to
the charges, the defendants are members of the Anarcho-syndicalist
Initiative. In addition, the defendants have been kept in custody since
September 3rd 2009 and Leonora Cvijovic, a Deputy District Public
Prosecutor, asked for their custody to be extended until the first court
proceeding. Her request was approved.
The criminal proceedings, the fact that the defendants have been kept in
custody for longer than three months, the events that are related to
what they are accused of, as well as other similar charges and criminal
acts in Serbia, show that the prosecution, but also the courts,
discriminate in a grave and dangerous way against the defendants in
comparison to others who were accused or are potentially accused for
committing similar criminal acts.
Therefore, it is important to explain in what ways this is the case of
discrimination.
1. Firstly, discrimination is related to the fact that the defendants
were placed into a pre-trial custody, which was then extended twice so
it has lasted more than three months. The reasons for placing someone
into, and extending, custody are defined in the clause 142 in the
Serbian Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). According to the accusation, a
reason for placing the defendants into, and extending their, custody lie
in the alleged “special circumstances which suggest that the defendants
will repeat a criminal act, or will complete an attempted criminal act,
or that they will realize their threat to commit a criminal act” (clause
142, paragraph 1, point 3, CPA). However, in the part of the accusation
where the Deputy District Public Prosecutor asks for the extension of
the custody there is not a single word about “special circumstances”
which suggest that the accused would repeat the criminal act they
committed, or that they would complete it or that they would realize a
threat to commit another criminal act. Neither is there anything about
the “special circumstances” in the rest of the accusation.
On the contrary, the accusation shows that the defendants denied that
they committed the criminal act, and their quotes in the accusation do
not lead to a conclusion that they would repeat the same act or commit
another. Moreover, the deputy prosecutor points out that the motive for
the attack against the Embassy of Greece was to show support for a
citizen of Greece, Theodoros Iliopoulos (named inventively as Teodis
Iliopunos by the prosecution) who was on hunger strike at the time when
the alleged crime was committed. After forty-nine days of hunger strike,
Iliopoulos was released from prison (together with other Greek citizens
who were arrested because of the demonstrations in December 2008), so
the claim that the defendants might repeat the act sounds more like
science fiction than like reality. This is so because the reason for
repeating the act does not exist any more. (The release of Iliopoulos
from prison is a well-known fact which can be easily confirmed through a
search via Google or another search machine. It can be found in Serbian
sources as well.)
If we look at the other reasons for keeping someone in custody, which
are defined in the clause 142 CPA, it is clear that such reasons do not
exist here. The defendants are not in hiding; their identity is not
unknown; there is no danger of destroying evidence or hindering the
gathering of evidence given that the accusation has already been legally
enforced; nor did the defendants avoid appearing in court for the
proceedings (although, they were not able to avoid that). Finally, by
pointing to the particular clause, paragraph and point, the reason for
keeping someone in custody is defined in such a way that “special
circumstances” must be specified. But the accusation does not explain them.
For all these reasons, it can be concluded that the prosecution and the
court were guided by the reasons which are not legal when they decided
to place the accused into custody and extend it. Given that a foreign
country suffered damage by the criminal proceedings, it is not difficult
to prove that their reasons were political. The court, and any other
state agency, that acts according to political criteria, engages in a
political trial and negates the right to a fair and just trial, which is
guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, as well as in the Serbian Constitution.
But why is this a case of discrimination? This is discrimination because
some accused are placed into custody even without legal reasons in
Serbia, while others are not. The first are discriminated against,
whereas the second are privileged. To prove this, we need not look into
the distant past. Several days ago, a television programme Insider,
shown on TV B92, informed the public about individuals who were charged
with violent criminal proceedings, but who were not placed in custody at
all, or if they were, then they were held in custody only for a few
days. Here are several quotes from the B92 website:
“Djordje Prelic, born in 1985, is a leader of a group of Partisan
football club’s supporters called ‘Alcatraz’. According to the data,
which we acquired owing to the Freedom of Information Act, Djordje
Prelic was charged more than twenty times for various criminal matters
in the last several years. So far, most of these charges have not
resulted in final verdicts. When he escaped from Serbia after he had
killed Brice Taton, Ivica Dacic, the Serbian Minister of Police informed
the public that Prelic is a well-known drug dealer. It is still unclear
how it has been possible for him to remain free.”
“Criminal charges were pressed against Vavic in January 2005, when he
was arrested under suspicion that he inflicted grave injuries on Stefan
Gajic and Darko Kuric by stabbing them. However, he was released only a
day later after the consultations with Nebojsa Bojic, a judge of the
Fifth Municipal Court. The charges were filed with the District
Prosecution in a regular way. Replying officially to the questions of
the programme Insider, the District Prosecution said that the trial was
suspended.”
“The same is the case with the groups of supporters of the football club
Red Star. For example, Velibor Dunjic, a leader of Red Star’s
supporters, was arrested only recently under a suspicion of committing a
murder. However, he has been repeatedly charged with grave criminal acts
over a long period of time, but almost none of the trials reached
completion. That is how it was possible that he was eventually charged
even with an attempted murder. Velibor Dunjic, “Velja”, is twenty-four
and is a leader of a group of Red Star’s supporters called ‘Belgrade
Boys’. Many people explained his aggressive, and often unpunished,
behavior by pointing at the fact that his father was a retired police
officer. Dunjic, himself, often threatened police officers with his
father when he was arrested. According to Insider’s research, since 2009
nineteen charges were pressed against Dunjic, which accused him of
committing at least thirty-one criminal matters. Dunjic was still free
and in April 2008 he was charged with an attempted murder.”