Serbia must not become Pinochet's Chile

The case of the "Novi Sad group", as it is Aleksandar Vučić called "conspiratorial" a group of members of the Movement of Free Citizens and activists of the student organization "Stav", some of whom have been in custody in Novi Sad for more than two months, in medieval stone conditions, and others are in forced exile - probably the biggest political-legal hogwash in the recent history of the country. Almost everything that the regime, the prosecution and the judiciary - as an inseparable, organic entity with one head at the head - did in the proceedings against the "conspirators" is in conflict with the laws, with justice, with elementary logic, and with elementary humanity. We will not talk about European standards, human rights and the rule of law now - it is clear to everyone where Serbia is, and where the democratically governed countries are.

One of the detained "conspirators", high school teacher, anti-fascist and member of PSG Marija Vasić, a few days ago, as a sign of protest against the illegality and senselessness of the procedure, she decided to go on a hunger and thirst strike. Very soon, her health deteriorated dramatically and she was transferred from the Klisan detention center to the hospital unit of the Belgrade Central Prison. For days, neither the relatives, nor the lawyers - not even the competent court - had any information about how she was, or whether she was even alive. It is to be hoped that this demonstrative political-legal exercise of the regime will not result in human casualties or permanent damage to the health of either Maria or other detainees.

It is also to be hoped that the pressure from Europe (the European Commission also reacted because of Marija Vasić) and the daily protests of citizens in front of the Novi Sad judicial building will result in the immediate suspension of the proceedings against the "Novi Sad group" and the release of the activists, which is the only thing that makes legal sense. Or at least to be released from custody, to defend themselves from freedom. There was never any reason to put them among the bedbugs, and there were even fewer legal reasons for their detention to be extended on two occasions of 30 days each. If there is a trial and if the court adheres to the law at least a little, the procedure must end only with the acquittal of both the detainees and the exiles who - at least according to the indictment - will be tried in absentia.

There were already reports in the media that the "twelve" were wiretapped by the BIA on the orders of director Vladimir Orlić. Of course, the wiretapping was illegal and it is quite evident that the agency was misused for party purposes. Of course, opposition political parties are listened to only in countries that cling to democracy as much as last year's snow, and in whose prisons political opponents die.

These young people, in detention and exile, ran riot only because the regime needed them to express its repressive capabilities, to intimidate everyone who raised their voice through them. They allegedly wanted to violently overthrow the country's constitutional order. If it wasn't tragic, it would be comical.

The office of the famous Novi Sad lawyer Vladimir Horovic is defending two detainees, Srđan Đurić and Lada Jovović. Horovic has no dilemma - it is a matter of political persecution of dissenters. We talk with him about the case and the chronology of illegality, and the legal and political consequences of the process.

First of all, Horovic reminds, the criminal complaint itself, on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated, which was submitted by the Anti-Terrorism Service of the Criminal Police Directorate in Belgrade, is in violation of the law. It does not contain acts of execution, nor quotes of what any of the defendants said, but only the applicant's opinion and conclusion about what the defendants' intentions were. The higher public prosecutor's office in Novi Sad therefore had to reject the report, he believes.

It is also disputed that the defense attorneys did not have access to the court files for 14 days, which prevented the defendants from defending themselves. In addition, the High Public Prosecutor's Office issued an order to declare the audio recording, which was previously broadcast on numerous regime channels, a secret. If it is already a secret, and in the interest of public safety, why did VJT not take appropriate measures against these media and the person who submitted the record to them?

The Prosecution then filed an indictment even though it did not complete the evidentiary actions it had foreseen. The indictment also represents an opinion only, it contains no facts or evidence. The aim of the rush was obviously to create the conditions for the extension of detention, which had to be terminated without an indictment. And the reasons for the extension of detention are not only not legally founded, but also pointless.

It is also questionable whether the acting judge was chosen in accordance with the law, according to the order of assignment, or whether the rights of the defendants were violated in this case as well.

WEATHER: Considering such a large number of contradictions, illegalities and irregularities - what can we say, which is the point of this process? Because of which, in fact, six people have been in detention for more than two months, and the other six are, just as long, in political exile?

VLADIMIR HOROVIC: There is no doubt: the essence of the process is the political persecution of dissidents. And political persecution has another function - to intimidate all citizens of this country who use their right to free opinion.

There are many institutions that are, to put it mildly, failed in this process, from the police, BIA, prosecutor's office, up to the judiciary. Can it be said that it is a coordinated action that exposes how the legal system in Serbia works?

It is quite logical to assume that it is not about planning, nor about chance, nor about the spontaneous operation of the system. It is a planned game of the law, with the aim, as I said, not only to persecute these twelve persons but to intimidate all citizens. The aim is to limit the right to free thought, free association and expression.

Is it realistic to expect the reaction of some institutions to obvious illegalities?, for example prosecutorial and judicial councils, ombudsman, associations of judges and prosecutors?

As far as the prosecution is concerned, the Association of Prosecutors of Serbia, as well as the High Council of Prosecutions, would have to react, given the obvious illegalities in the actions of the prosecution in this case. It accepted the criminal complaint which is nothing more than the opinion of the applicant, without any facts and evidence to support that opinion. Such is the indictment proposal. Without evidence, based on unknown facts, it is inferred what the students or the accused were thinking. Therefore, it is a tort of opinion that has not been proven.

Another thing is the court's actions when determining and extending custody. Before us are the decisions of the judge who received the case. The High Council of the Judiciary would have to react, if nothing else, through the supervision of the court's actions. The Association of Judges of Serbia should also react. These are all institutions that should be involved in this process in different ways, but we do not see that they are doing so.

The criminal complaint is, as you say, only the opinion of the applicant, without citing any evidence. Such is the indictment.. Not only are there no quotes from what any of the detainees or exiles said, but there are also no elements in it that would confirm that there was even a plan and means to destroy the constitutional order.?

The criminal report and indictment must contain facts, or more precisely, evidence on the basis of which the court could conclude that there is a well-founded suspicion that a criminal offense has been committed. These facts must be presented in the form of evidence - either tangible items or quotes. You can't just guess what someone was thinking. Apart from the video, there is no other material evidence, no items, or anything that would indicate the reality of preparation for the commission of any criminal offense, including the criminal offense charged against them.

Wouldn't it be in this kind of procedure, and when it comes to the indictment proposal, and when it comes to determining custody, it would be logical to take into account the fact whether it is a question of persons who are known for their previous criminal acts or persons who have an unblemished past?

Even if they are persons who have been previously convicted of similar criminal acts, a new proceeding cannot be conducted against them without the facts and evidence. Regardless of the criminal record - and especially that we are dealing here with persons who have an impeccable past, who have not been convicted - the court process cannot be conducted only on the basis of someone claiming that they thought something, without referring to what was specifically said and the actions that were done. Let's say, went there and did this and that, prepared this and that... There is none of that in the report or in the indictment.

The lawyers waited two weeks to gain insight into the court files. Audio-the recording was declared secret by order of the prosecutor. Regime televisions, however, broadcast that footage, in prime time-time, all while producing panic. It was said at the time that the recording was provided to the media by one of the participants in the conversation, which later turned out to be a propaganda lie. What legal consequences for the illegal broadcasting of the video should be borne by those who submitted the video to the television stations and the media themselves?

According to the order of the prosecutor, we are all obliged to treat the recording and its content as a secret. In this part of the procedure, we do not have the right to appeal against that as defense counsel. The prosecutor was obliged to initiate proceedings against those who disclosed the state secret, that is, who published the state secret without his consent. As a defense attorney, I have no right to comment on the content of the video, and some NGO television or radio broadcaster can do whatever they want with it! It is, to put it mildly, nonsense.

Do the lawyers have insight into the integral recording? We know that there is a possibility of various manipulations if the recording is not complete, such as taking it out of context. Televisions are, by the way, chose to broadcast only what they liked.

Whatever is on that tape is not included in the indictment. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is complete or partial when you do not mention it in the indictment. Therefore, the proposal does not state the content of the video, and conclusions are drawn based on it. But you are right, if the recording is used at trial, if there is a discussion about it, it is certain that the defense will ask for the broadcast and review of the entire recording. But that is a question for the future, which should not arise at all, given that the indictment does not contain any details of the recorded conversation at all.

What happened, in your opinion, acting judge had to do if he wanted to bring things back within the legal framework?

He would have to return the indictment to the prosecutor, so that it would be amended in accordance with the law. The prosecutor must establish decisive facts and present them precisely, so that based on them the judge can conclude what the defendants actually did, what they thought, whether it is a criminal offense or not, that is, whether or not there are features of the criminal offense for which they are accused. The judge could also suspend the proceedings, because the indictment does not show a single fact or evidence on the basis of which what is written in the indictment could be true.

The fact that the BIA or any other state institution is eavesdropping on an opposition party sounds frightening in itself. Do you have a comment on that??

It refers to the protection of the integrity of parties - not only a specific party, but every political association. What if this becomes a practice? What will happen if recordings of what is said in SNS or other parties at closed meetings appear? Let's remember the famous "Watergate" case. The state wiretapped the Democrat's office. When this was discovered, measures were immediately taken to sanction not only those who eavesdropped, but also those who issued the order. Ultimately, it led to the resignation of President Nixon. If he had not resigned, he would have been impeached.

All of this that we have been talking about is terrifying, but the fact that innocent people have been in detention or are in political exile for seventy days is even more terrifying. Where is the problem from the point of view of legality?

Detention was originally ordered for two reasons. The first reason is the possibility of influencing the alleged accomplices who are abroad, and whose names have not even been mentioned because the proceedings against them have not even been conducted so far. That reason was already eliminated in the second-instance procedure on the lawyer's appeal, it was judged that there were no sufficient grounds for it. But permanently, from the first day, there was and remains the following reason: the possibility that the defendants who are deprived of their liberty will repeat the crime if they are released. And why does this possibility exist? The court claims that social circumstances - protests by citizens and students - are still ongoing and it is not known when they will end. That is why they determine and extend the detention of the defendants.

Social circumstances are something that is present everywhere and detention can always be extended based on them. But that is not according to the law. Let's give an example. For example, if it were legal, the detention of a shoplifter who robbed one store could be indefinitely extended, all under the pretext that there are many more stores in the country that he could potentially rob. Can detention be extended for that reason? It would be completely absurd, just as extending the detention of activists is absurd.

photo: milan miskov

Therefore, it can be said that the court conditions the abolition of custody - by stopping the protest?

That's how it turns out. The court demands that the protests of citizens and students stop - only then will people be released from detention. He could also say: "We will release the shoplifter only when there are no more shops in the country." It goes against common sense.

Detention can last a maximum of 60 days if no indictment is filed. The prosecutor raised motion 59. on, apparently with the sole intention of prolonging detention?

That's right. Had he done so on the 61st day, the accused would have had to be released on the 60th day. If this detention were to remain, it can be extended without limitation, so that they can be kept in detention indefinitely - as long as the protests of students and citizens continue.

Let's also deal with the case of Marija Vasić. Due to illegality and political persecution, she started a hunger and thirst strike. Her condition suddenly worsened and she was transferred to the prison hospital. For several days, no one had information about her health condition, not even if she's alive.

When someone decides to go on a hunger and thirst strike, his entire life and legal position should be immediately considered. Let's say, if her health is impaired, can she repeat the crime if she is released? The court, that is, the president of the court, did not exercise its right to supervise the health condition of persons in custody, in the sense of whether their condition is adequate for them to be in custody. That's a big mistake.

In addition to the court, the Ombudsman also had to react. He is also obliged to look at what and why is happening to a citizen who decided to go on a hunger and thirst strike, such a risky move for health and life. And what is its condition and what can be done. No one thinks about Maria except relatives, friends and lawyers. The institutions must react, to prevent the strike from seriously endangering her health or even, God forbid, her very life.

In addition to these institutions, the institution where she was or is, and is now in CZ, has the obligation to promptly and promptly report to the representatives, close relatives, as well as the court, about the health condition of the person on hunger and thirst strike, whether the condition worsens or improves. And what is being done about it, to eliminate the dangers of permanently damaging health or endangering life.

Does the court seem, prosecution, mode - It is difficult to separate them. - they want to "get out of this situation" by the defendant admitting guilt and settling with the prosecution?

Absolutely. That's what I call blackmail. Namely, the accused are blackmailed and directed to confess to something they did not do, in order to possibly be acquitted or settle with the prosecution regarding the amount of the sentence. Detention, therefore, in this case serves as a means of conditioning and blackmail. Confession of guilt, however, must be an expression of free will. It must be a clear, voluntary act of a person who admits to having committed a criminal offense, and that confession must be confirmed by the court. There is no free will in this case. If you are offered a way out of detention through a confession — that is not free will. And that is legally inadmissible.

Reactions from European institutions were frequent, which request that the procedure be returned to the legal framework, to protect the human rights of the defendants. There are also citizen protests.. Can all of this result in the government withdrawing from this senseless court process??

It is important that there is a strong social attitude against lawlessness, against illegal detention. The condemnation of other countries and European institutions is important because this case speaks about the state of human rights in Serbia. He says that human rights to freedom, freedom of thought and expression are being violated in Serbia.

In a way, this case is, it seems, became a kind of watershed, will Serbia follow the path of Belarus or will it continue as it is?-such, even if the European road is completely broken and impossible. Do you share this impression??

For now, this procedure shows that we are going in the opposite direction to Europe and what we call European values. Not far away was the Pinochet regime in Chile. It was not far that relatives did not know for months, years, if their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers were alive, and where they were. It is possible that our society is headed in the direction of Chile, but we must not allow that.