FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1 (<strong>18</strong> JANUARY <strong>2007</strong>)defence, proportion or equivalence between endangered andviolated property is important. it is completely understandablebecause, in cases of extreme necessity, there is conflict betweentwo rights. Complete and complex judgement of particularsituation, where hierarchy of properties which are protected andcompared is important, is necessary for fulfilment of thiscondition.It is considered that violation of material goods like: life, physicalintegrity, <strong>free</strong>dom, honour is fundamentally greater thanviolation of material goods such as estate. Moreover, easiercompensable violations of properties of the same kind are lessharmful. However, there is a question whether the institute ofextreme necessity can exists in case when there are two propertiesof the same value (e.g. two lives-violator and perpetrator) 40 .According to objective theory, society in this case has no reason toprefer one legal property to another, and because of that it iscompletely indifferent and disinterested about the question ofwhose property will actually be violated and whose will be saved.In case of conflict of two interests or two properties of the samevalue, society has no excuse, but also no reason to give advantageto one of them, but still, criminal <strong>law</strong> provides that there isextreme necessity in case when, during the elimination of danger,caused harm is equal to threatening harm, considering psychicalcondition of the person, especially in case of danger for somemore significant legal property (e.g. life, body).Comprehension, according to which extreme necessity also existsin case of conflict between two properties of the same value, wasintroduced in criminal <strong>law</strong> of former SFR Yugoslavia, byamendment of Criminal code dating from 1959. Up to then,extreme necessity had only been related to violation of properties40N. Srzentić, A. Stajić, Lj. Lazarević, Krivično pravo SFRJ, Opšti deo,Savremena administracija, Beograd, 1978.p.17654BORISLAV PETROVIĆ PHD, AND DRAGAN JOVAŠEVIĆ - BASESFOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT IN CRIMINALLAW OF BOSNIA AND HERZGEGOVINA
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1 (<strong>18</strong> JANUARY <strong>2007</strong>)of less value than the property which was saved by eliminatingdanger. Therefore, the existence of proportion between propertywhich is endangered by occurred danger and property which isviolated during elimination of such danger, is very important forthe existence of extreme necessity.3.3. Violation of extreme necessityIf a perpetrator, during eliminating danger for his own orsomeone else’s legal property, oversteps the limit of extremenecessity which was set under condition that caused harm is notgreater than threatening harm, there is violation or excess ofextreme necessity. Therefore, violation of extreme necessity existswhen a person eliminates danger from a legal property andduring that action violates someone’s property which is of highervalue or greater significance than the property being protected.An act committed in violation of extreme necessity is a criminalact and a person who committed it is responsible according togeneral principles of criminal <strong>law</strong>. Most often violation of extremenecessity happens in situations when a person who eliminatesdanger is not in a position to estimate values of both legalproperties and the level of excusable action when eliminatingdanger and causing harm to one’s legal property 41 .But, not only is in practice very difficult do determine whether acriminal act is punishable, whether it was committed out ofextreme necessity and whether extreme necessity is violated, butthe criminal-legal theory has no definite attitude about where thelimits of extreme necessity are. Some authors say that violation ofextreme necessity cannot represent the basis which has influenceon mitigation or exemption of sentence. Namely, an actcommitted out of extreme necessity, is committed towards41Lj. Nešić, Krivično pravo, Opšti deo, Zemunska štampa, Beograd, 1991. p.99-10055BORISLAV PETROVIĆ PHD, AND DRAGAN JOVAŠEVIĆ - BASESFOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT IN CRIMINALLAW OF BOSNIA AND HERZGEGOVINA
- Page 1 and 2:
FREE LAW JOURNAL!VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1
- Page 3 and 4: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 5 and 6: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 7 and 8: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 9 and 10: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 11 and 12: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 13 and 14: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 15 and 16: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 17 and 18: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 19 and 20: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 21 and 22: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 23 and 24: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 25 and 26: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 27 and 28: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 29 and 30: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 31 and 32: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 33 and 34: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 35 and 36: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 37 and 38: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 39 and 40: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 41 and 42: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 43 and 44: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 45 and 46: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 47 and 48: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 49 and 50: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 51 and 52: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 53: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 57 and 58: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 59 and 60: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 61 and 62: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 63 and 64: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 65 and 66: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 67 and 68: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 69 and 70: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 71 and 72: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 73 and 74: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 75 and 76: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 77 and 78: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 79 and 80: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 81 and 82: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 83 and 84: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 85 and 86: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 87 and 88: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 89 and 90: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 91 and 92: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 93 and 94: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 95 and 96: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 97 and 98: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 99 and 100: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 101 and 102: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 103 and 104: FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 105 and 106:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 107 and 108:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 109 and 110:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 111 and 112:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 113 and 114:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 115 and 116:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 117 and 118:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 119 and 120:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 121 and 122:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 123 and 124:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 125 and 126:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 127 and 128:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 129 and 130:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 131 and 132:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 133 and 134:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 135 and 136:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 137 and 138:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 139 and 140:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER
- Page 141 and 142:
FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 3, NUMBER