Untitled

Humanitarian Law Centerratified by the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, especially Article 4of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15 ofthe European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms. Both of these international documents allow the StateParties in time of war or in time of public emergency, which threatens thelife of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, to takemeasures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenantto the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, providedthat such measures do not derogated from the obligations related to theright to life, prohibition of torture, slavery, and punishing based solemnlyon law. Therefore, the defendant’s statement given in the presence of theex officio Defence Attorney Dragutin Stanković, whom the defendant acceptedas an Attorney, was not taken in illegal way or in collision with InternationalLaw.The appeals are unfoundedly challenging the first instance verdict becauseof the serious violation of the criminal procedure provisions prescribedunder Article 368 Para 1 Item 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is alleged,in relation to this, that the text of the appealed verdict is in collisionwith the reasons, the verdict does not contain the reasons for the relevantfacts, and it especially does not contain a word about the intent; the firstinstance court’s assessment of the evidence was challenged, especially relatedto the statements given by the witnesses- juvenile injured parties,witness Goran Stoparić, and Fatos Bogujevci, as well as the ballistic expertise,the way the death and injuries of persons named in the text were determined.The appeals, by explaining the aforementioned violation of thecriminal procedure, give the explanation that the first instance court’s verdictwas challenged because of the falsely and incompletely determinedfactual background.Contrary to the these allegations from the appeals, the text of the appealedverdict is clear and entirely determined; it is in agreement with the reasonsprovided in the Statement of Reasons and these reasons are sufficient,clear, and in compliance with the real content of the evidence adduced.Therefore, the first instance court is unfoundedly challenged because ofthe serious violation of the criminal procedure provision prescribed underArticle 368 Para 1 Item 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code.344