Untitled

DRAGOLJUB TODOROVIĆDECISION FOUNDED ON FALSE PREMISES 72Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision published in “Danas” on 4 March2005, we are asking you to announce the following:1) In the text, to which the Supreme Court reacted, I said that the first and themain reason for the dismissal of the verdict against Saša Cvjetan is the fact thatthe Supreme Court demanded that the first instance court initiate investigationand interrogate numerous witnesses by which it would determine whetherthe defence attorney attended the first interrogation of Cvjetan conductedbefore the Prokuplje District Court when Cvjetan admitted the commission ofthis crime, regardless of the fact that the investigative judge noted twice in theinterrogation record the presence of Attorney Dragutin Stanković.In order to clarify this situation with the reason for dismissal, it is necessaryto mention that the trial of Saša Cvjetan began before the Prokuplje DistrictCourt’s trial panel presided by Judge Milorad Lapčević and after several trialsessions the case was transferred to the Belgrade District Court because ofsafety reasons. At the very beginning of this trial before the Prokuplje DistrictCourt, investigative judge Mijat Bajović, his reporter Radica Marinković, andprison chief Aleksandar orević were examined regarding the fact whetheror not the defence attorney attended the first interrogation of Saša Cvjetanbefore the investigative judge.In the main hearing before the Belgrade District Court’s first instance trialpanel, the defence’s proposal for the repeated examination of investigativejudge, court reporter, and head of the prison, as well as a newly proposedwitness, the Prokuplje District Prosecutor. In line with Article 337 Paragraph72 The following Supreme Court’s reaction was published on 4 March 2005 in the ‘Danas’ journal:‘Your journal published on page 18 od the newspapers number 2701 published on 18 February 2005a text written by Attorney Dragoljub Todorović titled ‘Supreme Court’s Vague Decision’ in which theauthor presented a row of inveracities and insults addressed not only to the judges that participatedin handing down the verdict in this case, but also to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia. It isnot our intention to argue with the author. However, in order to have the public properly, accurately,and completely informed, we are demanding that you, in line with legal provisions, publish on thesame page the entire Serbian Supreme Court’s verdict Kž-1-1687/04 from 22 December 2004. Thisway the public would be introduced to all reasons listed in the verdict pertaining to the dismissal ofthe Belgrade District Court’s Decision K. 792/02 from 17. March 2004’. The verdict of the SerbianSupreme Court was published with necessary summarization.222