Untitled

Podujevo 1999 – Beyond Reasonable Doubtgative Judge, which was determined to be given regularly and in line withthe Criminal Procedure Code, Saša Cvjetan was found guilty of war crimeagainst civilian population and he was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.This verdict was pronounced on 17 March 2004.In view of this verdict, it is interesting that the first instance Court completelyaccepted Goran Stoparić’s statement as true and valid. The first instanceCourt had no doubt about whether or not Goran Stoparić was tellingthe truth and it was one of the key evidence for convicting CvjetanSaša. However, Stoparić accused another three “Scorpions” members, besidesCvjetan, for the murder of these civilians. These persons were: DejanDemirović, Dragan Medić, and Dragan Borojević. Since Cvjetan was convictedand the trial of Dejan Demirović was separated, the Prosecutor hadto submit another request for investigation against Dragan Medić and DraganBorojević, which did not happen. By this act, the Prosecutor showedthat the law applicable to Cvjetan is not applicable to Medić and Borojević.By this move, the Prosecutor practically abolished Medić and Borojevićand prevented the opening of the criminal proceedings, which would onlyprove if they are guilty or innocent.Saša Cvjetan and his Counsellors lodged appeals against the Belgrade DistrictCourt’s verdict. The main reasons for the appeals and essential argumentsagainst the verdict are concerned with the Cvjetan’s admission ofguilt given in the course of the investigation, which the Court accepted,compared to other pieces of evidence, and concluded it was valid becauseit was given in line with the Criminal Procedure Code.Dismissal of Verdict and RetrialThe Supreme Court made a ruling Kž I 1687/04 on 22 December 2004 bywhich it dismissed the first instance verdict handed down by the BelgradeDistrict Court and returned the case for retrial. In this ruling, the SupremeCourt did not present legal arguments for dismissing this verdict. After theevaluation of this ruling, it is obvious that the Supreme Court relied on politicalinstead of legal reasons when it was making the ruling in question.The Supreme Court found that the Criminal Procedure Code was violatedbecause the Court did not obtain the parties’ consent to read out the state-357