Untitled

DRAGOLJUB TODOROVIĆSUPREME COURT’S VAGUE DECISIONAt the end of the last year, the Serbian Supreme Court dismissed the BelgradeDistrict Court’s verdict, by which Saša Cvjetan was convicted to 20years of imprisonment for a war crime against the civilian population committedon 28 March 1999 in one yard in Podujevo when 14 Albanian civilians(children, women, old people) were killed and five children were seriouslywounded.Several months before this, the Supreme Court dismissed another verdicthanded down by the Belgrade District Court, which convicted the perpetratorsof war crime committed on 22 October 1992 when 16 passengersof Bosniak ethnicity were kidnapped from a bus travelling from Sjeverinto Užice, who were executed later on. Since the aforementioned verdictswere the only verdicts for this criminal act processed before the SupremeCourt, it means that the per cent of the dismissed verdicts for war crimesis one hundred.As for the reasons because of which the Supreme Court dismissed the verdictagainst Saša Cvjetan, they are absolutely beyond law and justice, courtand codes, court practice and interpretation of legal provisions, beyondlogic and common sense; they are completely absurd and nebulous. Thisis an insolent and flagrant abuse of the position of judge and high judicialinstitution for the purposes of day-to-day politics.The first, principle, main, and essential reason for the Supreme Court todismiss the verdict against Saša Cvjetan was the fact that the first instancecourt did not initiate investigation into the defendant’s allegations thathis attorney did not attend his first interrogation before the investigativejudge in the Prokuplje District Court when he admitted completely, precisely,clearly, and in detail the commission of the act he was charged with,even though he was legally obliged to be present during the interrogation.The documents show without any doubt or dilemma that the Belgrade DistrictCourt’s first instance trial panel acted properly and lawfully when it refusedto open investigation requested by defendant Saša Cvjetan and hisdefence counsel, out of the following reasons:218