Defence in „Tunnel“ case: Bijelo Polje High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, claiming Erić appears in footage, despite no such claim by prosecutor

The panel of the Bijelo Polje High Court, which overturned the acquittal in the „Tunnel“ case, exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction by claiming that Vladimir Erić appears in the video recordings contained in the case file, even though the prosecutor makes no such claim, and explicitly states that the individuals shown are unknown persons.

Attorney Stefan Jovanović made the statement after the closing arguments in the case and ahead of tomorrow’s verdict, scheduled for 9 a.m.

- The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, which is conducting the criminal proceedings, does not claim that Vladimir Erić appears in the video recordings. In fact, it does not claim that any of the defendants appear in them. It is unclear where the Bijelo Polje High Court got its finding that these are the defendants. I believe this must be the subject of a serious analysis, and it says enough about the quality of the decision overturning the first-instance judgment - Jovanović said emphatically.

COURT EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PROSECUTION’S CLAIMS

He also believes that the reasons given by the Bijelo Polje High Court for overturning the first-instance acquittal are contradictory, inconsistent and insufficiently specific in the case concerning the excavation of an underground tunnel from the basement of a rented apartment to the evidence depot of the High Court in Podgorica, where numerous pieces of evidence are kept, including weapons, drugs and other confiscated items. The tunnel was discovered in September 2023.

Attorney Milica Mandić shares his view, saying that the defence was particularly surprised by the reasons given for overturning the previous decision.

-As we pointed out in our closing arguments, we were surprised by the appellate court’s reasons for overturning the decision. The court went beyond the grounds of appeal submitted by the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica and interpreted certain claims that were not even contained in that appeal, which it has no right to do, not even ex officio - Mandić said.

In addition, she noted that, despite pointing to an incompletely established factual situation, the Bijelo Polje court did not provide clear reasons as to which direction the retrial should take or which facts should be established.

- Thus, we as the defence, as well as the first-instance court, were deprived of specific instructions, guidance and reasons as to how these proceedings should be conducted today in order to reach a sound and lawful decision - Mandić added.

She assessed that the first-instance acquittal was lawful and the product of properly and lawfully conducted proceedings, and that the Basic Court had reached the verdict correctly on the basis of the evidence presented. As she emphasized, she expects the same decision again.

Jovanović likewise said that he rightfully expects another acquittal.

- Regarding the previous decision, I would say that it is something that should be studied at law faculties as an example for all judges - both younger and older - of how proceedings should be conducted and how all evidence collected during the prosecution’s investigation should be assessed - Jovanović said, adding that the Basic Court had done everything within its power and jurisdiction and that the defence expected the previously issued decision to be upheld.

EVIDENCE PROPOSED NOW HAD EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING

At today’s hearing on the continuation of the main trial, prosecutor Marko Mugoša submitted a new proposal for evidence concerning the DNA of Milan Marković. However, as attorney Jovanović pointed out, this concerns an additional expert examination that was carried out in the meantime - approximately 20 days ago.

- So, an additional expert examination concerning one of the defendants was carried out practically 20 days ago. According to the defence, this is legally invalid evidence because, at this stage of the proceedings, an order for an expert examination can only be issued by the authority conducting the proceedings - that is, the court - Jovanović explained.

Given that the case is now at the main-trial stage, he said, the prosecution could not have issued such an order.

- It is particularly indicative that this is evidence which, as we heard from the expert witness, has existed since September 2023 - from the time this incident occurred. The question is what happened in the meantime and why it was not proposed as evidence earlier - Jovanović said.

The expert witness, he added, was also unequivocal that the examination had been conducted on the basis of material that was not suitable as a reference sample.

- In other words, they did not have an undisputed sample from the defendant. Instead, they used some kind of CD that was provided through international cooperation, Interpol or however it was obtained. In any event, even if it were not legally invalid evidence, it is still clear that there is no undisputed sample suitable for comparison with what was allegedly found at the crime scene - Jovanović concluded.

All the defendants once again denied guilt today and stood by the defence statements they gave during the first proceedings, with the exception of Katarina Baćović, who maintained her right to remain silent throughout the proceedings.