Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubt2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the power of attorney previously obtainedfrom the parties, the Belgrade District Court’s first instance trial panelread the aforementioned persons’ statements given in Prokuplje and usedthem as evidence in its verdict.However, the Supreme Court alleged in the decision, by which it dismissedthe verdict against Saša Cvjetan that the first instance court made a grave violationof the criminal procedure provisions prescribed under Article 368 Paragraph2 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the first instance court didnot apply or it incorrectly applied the Criminal Procedure Code provision.In this particular case, it is noted that the first instance court improperly appliedthe provision from Article 337 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal ProcedureCode “...because it improperly applied the provision of Article 337 Paragraph2 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the reading of records from theexamination of witnesses Mijat Bajović, Radica Marinković, and Aleksandarorević because these witnesses were not examined in the main hearing beforethe presiding judge of the trial panel, which handed down this appealedverdict and the parties to this case, the defence in particular, did not give consentfor these statements to be read.”This is a notorious lie, a complete nonsense, and an insolent deception.In the main hearing sessions held on 6 February and 2 May 2004 before theBelgrade District Court trial panel comprised of five members, the partiesagreed with the reading of statements given by the witnesses examined beforethe Prokuplje District Court, who were not examined before the BelgradeDistrict Court. Therefore, there is no serious violation of the Criminal ProcedureCode prescribed under Article 368 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal ProcedureCode because Article 337 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Codewas properly applied to the first instance verdict.Other reasons for dismissal emerged from this crude fabrication of the factualbackground in the documents, which the Supreme Court made in the decisionon dismissal. Based on the false premise that the grave violation of theCriminal Procedure Code was made, the Supreme Court put the following remarksto the verdict handed down by the first instance court: “...it violatedone of the basic principles of the criminal procedure, which is the principle ofimmediacy ...”, then principle of contradiction, and they also claim that the223