Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtthe criminal procedure code provisions, violations of the criminalcode, and falsely and incompletely determined factual background;he proposed that the disputable verdict be dismissed;- defendant Saša Cvjetan’s defence counsellor, attorney AnelkoskaTatjana, after the statute of limitations for the appeal expired, submittedan explanation of the defendant’s appeal and proposed thatthe Serbian Supreme Court dismissed the appealed verdict.The Supreme Court held a trial panel session pursuant to Article 375 of theCriminal Code Procedure in the presence of the Republic Public ProsecutorRužica Janić, who supported the stance from the Republic Public Prosecution’ssubmission number Ktž. 1813/04, which proposed that the SupremeCourt overrules defendant Saša Cvjetan and his defence counsellors’ appeals.In the presence of defendant Saša Cvjetan and his attorneys oreKalanj, Ilija Radulović, Goran Rodić, and ore Mamula and in the absenceof the regularly summoned defence attorney Anelkoski Tatjana, the SupremeCourt discussed the documents from the case file together with thedisputable verdict, evaluated the appeals and found the following:Defendant Saša Cvjetan and his defence counsellors’ appeals are founded.The defendant and his attorneys appeals contain a founded claim that thefirst instance court made a grave breach of the criminal procedure provisionspursuant to Article 368 Para 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code becauseit did not properly apply the provision of Article 337 Para 2 of theCriminal Procedure Code regarding the reading of the Witness ExaminationRecords from the examination of witnesses Mijat Bajović, RadicaMarinković, and Aleksandar orević because these witnesses were not examinedin the main hearing before the presiding judge in the panel whichhanded down this appealed verdict and there was no consent of the partiesto this procedure, especially the defence, to read these records.These are the witnesses whose statements are important for the regular andlegal judgement because witness Radica Marinković claimed that defencecounsellor Dragutin Stanković did not attend the interrogation of the defendanton 24 May 1999 when he admitted that he committed the act he211