English version below
Ni pet meseci po okončanju pretresa u drugom ponovljenom suđenju optuženima za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije, Apelacioni sud u Beogradu još nije saopštio presudu. No, to je prvo učinio lider Srpskog pokreta obnove Vuk Drašković, a potom i njegova supruga Danica Drašković u autorskom tekstu, tvrdeći da je presuda, koja je i konačna posle bezmalo decenije suđenja – oslobađajuća.
Koliko ima istine u tome i kakve bi bile posledice i na nacionalnom i na međunarodnom planu po novinare i novinarstvo, ali i čitavu Srbiju, u slučaju da za jedno belodano ubistvo počinjeno pre bezmalo četvrt veka, atentat u organizaciji države, optuženi zaista dočekaju slobodu za taj zločin, razgovaramo sa predsednikom Komisije za istrage ubistava novinara Veranom Matićem.
Kolega Matiću, imate li vi saznanja o mogućoj oslobađajućoj presudi u slučaju „Ćuruvija“?
Vuk Drašković je u junu na Tanjug televiziji rekao eksplicitno da je doneta oslobađajuća presuda, a onda je to nekoliko puta ponovio. Zatim je Danica Drašković u autorskom tekstu za Danas to takođe eksplicitno navela, sa čitavim kontekstom i objašnjenjima da se ništa drugo nije ni moglo očekivati, da duboka država i državna bezbednost štite svoje ljude.
Tokom suđenja i istražnog dela postupka svih deset godina bilo je izuzetno jake opstrukcije, veoma često na ivici da se bitni dokazi eliminišu iz sudskog procesa iako su postojale dve presude da se trake koje su beležile kretanja agenata Državne bezbednosti vrate među dokaze. Paradoks je da je apelacija vraćala postupak prvostepenom sudu i taj sud je u dva navrata osudio optužene na ukupno sto godina zatvora.
Posle svih tih saznanja, napisao sam pismo Apelacionom sudu tražeći informaciju o tome da li je presuda doneta, i posle prepiske dobio sam informaciju da jeste i da nije još objavljena. Naravno da nisam mogao da dobijem informaciju o tome kakva je presuda, ali ta informacija i vremenski period su se poklapali sa saznanjima koja su iznosili Vuk i Danica Drašković.
Pre mesec dana sam od jednog državnog sekretara dobio informaciju kako je pouzdano da je presuda oslobađajuća, a potom još od nekoliko naših kolega novinara koja prate različita suđenja, tako da je u ovom trenutku izvesnije da je presuda oslobađajuća nego neka druga, potvrđujuća ili druge zatvorske kazne.
Ja ne mogu da ulazim mnogo u razloge za tako nešto, ako je to tačno, to ćemo videti u obrazloženju, ali jasno je da bi takva odluka naštetila položaju novinara u našoj zemlji jer je nekažnjivost ubistva novinara i nasilja nad novinarima najčešći generator drugih ubistava i nasilja. U ovom slučaju, ponavljam ako je to tačno, to bi značilo da novinari neće moći da računaju na neku ozbiljniju pravnu zaštitu. Ako u slučaju u kojem je država stala iza celog procesa obnavljanja slučaja i istrage, posle dugog rada Tužilaštva i angažovanja Komisije za istragu ubistava novinara, bude takva odluka, ona bi bila poraz i za državu, i za novinarstvo, i za sve istrage koje bi trebalo da se vode u slučajevima ubistava novinara.
Advokat porodice Ćuruvija Slobodan Ružić kaže da postoje vanredni pravni lekovi, pominje Kasacioni sud, mada stručnjaci tvrde da je presuda – kakva god bila – konačna. Znate li nešto o tome i može li se očekivati postupak pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava?
Mislim da na Kasacionom sudu može samo da se utvrdi da li je bilo nekih propusta u procesu donošenja odluke, ali nema posledica po optužene. Ipak, svakako da je neophodno iskoristiti svaki pravni lek. I neophodno je u najvećoj mogućoj meri internacionalizovati slučaj.
Naravno, to mnogo zavisi od porodice i nas u medijskoj zajednici, od dogovora o načinu na koji će se nastaviti ova istraga. Bez obzira na to kakvu odluku je sud doneo, ne smemo odustati ni od ovog ni od ostalih slučajeva.
Jasno je da će na inače nepovoljan položaj novinara i medija u Srbiji koji nisu na tzv. liniji državne politike, oslobađajuća presuda uticati negativno, ali može li se očekivati i širi uticaj?
Istraga koja je vođena u slučaju ubistva Slavka Ćuruvije imala je planetarni značaj, kao takva je pohvaljena i država Srbija, policija, tužilaštvo koje je podiglo optužnicu. Dve presude su imale veoma veliki odjek u svetu kao ohrabrujući rezultat i mehanizam kako je moguće i sa slučajevima starim dvadeset godina doći do rezultata na pravosudnom nivou. Ovaj slučaj je veoma poznat, njega prate ne samo američki Komitet za zaštitu novinara, Evropska federacija novinara nego i međunarodne organizacije kao što je Evropska komisija i njena tela, Stejt department i organizacije pri američkoj vladi koje su sve zajedno davale veliku podršku.
Isto tako će se moguća oslobađajuća presuda odraziti na veliki pad Srbije na listama slobode medija; ako se ne varam, kod Reportera bez granica smo na 93. mestu, a 2014. kada je podignuta optužnica Srbija je bila na 54. mestu. To je zabrinjavajući trend. Konačna osuđujuća odluka u ovom slučaju pomogla bi da Srbija bude ozbiljnije tretirana i da ima bolje rezultate kada je reč o međunarodnim pogledima na zbivanja ovde i borbu protiv nekažnjivosti ubistava i napada na novinare, i uopšte, na bezbednost novinara.
Izuzev slučaja „Ćuruvija“, imamo i još dva potpuno različita ubistva; prvo je Dada Vujasinović, koja je ubijena pre trideset godina, drugi je Milan Pantić. Kada je ubijen pre 22 godine, verovalo se da će slučaj biti brzo rešen, a još je u predistražnoj radnji i nikako da stigne pred Tužilaštvo za organizovani kriminal iako Komisija insistira na tome.
Ubistvo Milana Pantića i istraga koja je vođena obilovala je takođe opstrukcijama, bez obzira na to što smo u to vreme mislili da će ubistva novinara biti nešto nedopustivo i da će to ubistvo brzo biti rešeno.
To se nije dogodilo iako je Komisija, odnosno radna grupa MUP-a i BIA-e koja je radila na slučaju, došla do podataka o ubicama, potvrdila imena i identitete onih koji su likvidirali Pantića, ali da bi se slučaj doveo do kraja, bilo je važno fiksirati motiv. Motiv je sporna privatizacija u tom kraju i upravo zbog toga je nužan angažman Tužilaštva za organizovani kriminal, ta privatizacija je jedna od 24 sporne privatizacije sa spiska Evropske komisije.
Istraga je stopirana 2010. godine iako se 2013. pojavio svedok koji je doneo novu dokumentaciju koja potvrđuje tezu iz istrage o motivu ubistva. U ovom trenutku u Tužilaštvo je prenet materijal iz Jagodine i oni utvrđuju da li će preuzeti istragu, što je pat situacija.
Kad je reč o Dadi Vujasinović, kao što znate, ta je istraga imala veliki hendikep jer je dugo vođena kao samoubistvo. Protok vremena je bio dug i jedino što se moglo su ta veštačenja, ali slučaj je i dalje otvoren.
Vi ste po prirodi posla upućeni u ne/bezbednost novinara, aktuelan je slučaj OK radija u Vranju. Međutim, medijska udruženja, nezadovoljna reakcijom nadležnih, izašla su iz Vladine radne grupe. Šta medijska zajednica može da učini na zaštiti novinara i medija?
Mešaju se dva tela, imamo Stalnu radnu grupu za bezbednost novinara osnovanu 2017. i u njoj su sva udruženja, tužilaštvo i MUP. U međuvremenu je unapređen njen rad, imamo oko sto kontakt tačaka u tužilaštvima i taj rad je jedan od primera kako se došlo do sinergije u slučaju OK radija; lokalni kriminalac, koji nije baš samo lokalni, Dejan Nikolić osuđen je zbog pretnji i ugrožavanja prvo na 14 meseci zatvora, pa onda na još 18. Naravno, još ima mnogo posla, još nije srušen bespravni objekat kojim je zazidan radio, ali zahvaljujući sinergiji novinarskih udruženja koja su pratila slučaj, lokalnog tužilaštva i policije napravljen je pomak. U rad grupe je uključen OEBS, imamo i SOS telefon, sastanke u gradovima gde su primećeni problemi i gde pokušavamo da pokrenemo postupke.
Radna grupa koju je formirala predsednica Vlade doživela je debakl zato što nije bilo jasne platforme i razumevanja zašto raditi dvostruki posao jer je besmisleno praviti još jedno telo koje se bavi istim poslom. Novinarska zajednica je imala viziju da je to radna grupa koja se bavi politikama van onog što je obuhvaćeno Krivičnim zakonom, ali deo radne grupe iz Vlade nije prihvatao predloge da se osuđuju slučajevi koji nisu krivična dela, ali jesu hajke, targetiranje novinara ili određenih redakcija, prozivanja u parlamentu, stvaranje klime koja je zaista toksična i lako može da preraste u nasilne oblike, što niko od nas ne bi želeo. To je razlog što su novinarska udruženja napustila tu grupu.
Ja mislim da ima razloga da postoji telo koje bi svakodnevno reagovalo na ugrožavanje novinara i medija i žestoke optužbe, ali to bi zahtevalo pažljivu pripremu i organizaciju šta to telo i kako radi.
Ako se ne varam, neko iz Vlade ili parlamenta je kazao da se ne mogu definisati pritisci na novinare, što je prilično paušalna ocena.
Jasno je da najveći i najozbiljniji pritisci dolaze iz vrhova vlasti, što je nedopustivo i što dalje generiše napade po društvenim mrežama kroz personalne hajke botova ili ljudi koji često imaju i problem s mentalnim zdravljem. To nam govori da se neće zaustaviti na verbalnom nivou i da može da ugrozi i novinare i medije. Satanizacija određenih novinara i redakcija je nedopustiva i odražava se, između ostalog, na funkcionisanje svih medija. Ako ste vi izolovani, ne dobijate informacije i odgovore od predstavnika vlasti, ne možete da radite. Sećam se da je Insajder najviše podataka dobijao iz zvaničnih izvora putem Zakona o pristupu informacijama od javnog značaja, ali i taj put je danas zatvoren.
Postoji mnogo frontova na kojima su mediji, posebno nezavisni, ugroženi, primorani su na smanjivanje broja novinara, a opšte siromašenje medija takođe ugrožava bezbednost novinara koji žele ozbiljno da se bave svojim poslom. Mi smo devedesetih imali mrežu medija pokrivenu donatorima, danas kao da su novinari prepušteni sami sebi.
Slučaj „Ćuruvija“, zločin i procesVlasnik lista Dnevni telegraf i nedeljnika Evropljanin Slavko Ćuruvija je ubijen 11. aprila 1999. godine u prolazu ispred zgrade u kojoj je živeo, u Svetogorskoj ulici u Beogradu. Bio je u društvu supruge Branke Prpe. U optužnici je navedeno da je N. N. lice rafalno pucalo sa razdaljine od jedan i po metar, nakon čega je Ćuruvija pao, a da je zatim ponovo na njega pucao iz neposredne blizine. Tom prilikom povređena je i Branka Prpa, koju je, prema navodima iz optužnice, Ratko Romić pištoljem udario u glavu kako ne bi videla Ćuruvijine ubice. Istraga je utvrdila da su Ćuruviju pratili službenici Državne bezbednosti, ali da je uoči ubistva pratnja obustavljena. Nekoliko dana pre atentata režimska Politika ekspres objavila je paškvilu „Ćuruvija dočekao bombe“, koja je pročitana i u udarnom dnevniku na državnoj televiziji. Time je označen za – odstrel. Ćuruvija je posle napuštanja mesta glavnog i odgovornog urednika u državnom listu Borba osnovao NT, početkom 1996. godine i prvi nezavisni dnevnik u Srbiji Dnevni telegraf, a zatim i nedeljnik Evropljanin. Suđenje za ubistvo je počelo u junu 2015, sedamnaest godina od atentata, koji je u javnosti odmah prepoznat kao ritualna likvidacija političkog neistomišljenika. Specijalni sud u Beogradu proglasio je 2019. krivim četvoricu nekadašnjih pripadnika Državne bezbednosti za ubistvo, a sud je naveo da je neposredni izvršilac ubistva NN lice. Tom presudom je na 30 godina osuđen nekadašnji šef Državne bezbednosti (DB) Radomir Marković za podstrekivanje na teško ubistvo. Nekadašnji šef beogradskog centra DB-a Milan Radonjić takođe je osuđen na 30 godina zatvora za teško ubistvo. Nekadašnji pripadnici DB-a Ratko Romić i Miroslav Kurak osuđeni su na po 20 godina zatvora za teško ubistvo. Apelacioni sud je tu presudu ukinuo septembra 2020, a odluka je obrazložena i time da je Specijalni sud presudom prekoračio optužbu i uvođenjem NN lica kao neposrednog izvršioca ubistva izmenio činjenično stanje opisano u optužnici. U ponovljenom postupku Specijalni sud u decembru 2021. ponovo osuđuje Markovića i Radonjića na po 30 godina zatvora, dok su Romić i Kurak ponovo osuđeni po 20 godina zatvora. Apelacioni sud je zato odlučio da otvori glavni pretres kako bi izveo dokaze za koje smatra da su neophodni za donošenje pravosnažne presude. Glavni pretres u postupku za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije počeo je 6. marta pred većem Apelacionog suda u Beogradu. Marković je na pretresu izjavio da ostaje pri odbrani iznetoj na prvostepenom suđenju, kada je negirao da je kriv za ubistvo novinara Slavka Ćuruvije, prenela je agencija Beta. Negirao je i svedočenje nekadašnjeg komandanta rasformirane Jedinice za specijalne operacije Milorada Ulemeka Legije, koji ga je u istrazi teretio za ubistvo Ćuruvije. Branka Prpa, nevenčana supruga Slavka Ćuruvije, koja je bila s njim kada je ubijen, na suđenju 6. marta je izjavila da kao napadača koji je u pucao na Ćuruviju nije prepoznala ni Miroslava Kuraka ni Ratka Romića, optužene da su neposredni izvršioci. Istragom i podacima sa baznih stanica utvrđeno je kretanje optuženih. |
Tekst prenet sa portala Novog magazina.
Autorka: Jelka Jovanović
Freedom for Ćuruvija's killers?
Novi magazin, 24 August 2023
By Jelka Jovanović
A month ago, I received information from a state secretary to the effect that it was certain that the verdict was ‘not guilty’, and then also from a few of our journalist colleagues who are following different trials, so, at this moment, it is more certain that this is a not guilty verdict than another one, a conviction or different forms of imprisonment, says the Chair of the Commission for Investigating the Killings of Journalists Veran Matić for Novi magazin
Five months following the search in the second retrial of persons accused for the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade has not yet informed of its verdict. However, the leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement Vuk Drašković was the first one to do so, followed by his wife Danica Drašković, who claimed in her op-ed that the verdict – a final one after nearly a decade of trial – is that of not guilty. How much truth is there to that and what would be the consequences, at the national and international level, for journalists and journalism, but also for the entire Serbia, in case that the accused are really granted freedom for a murder committed in the middle of the day almost a quarter of a century ago, for an assassination by the state, this is what we are discussing with the Chair of the Commission for Investigating Killings of Journalists Veran Matić.
Colleague Matić, do you have information about a possible not guilty verdict in the Ćuruvija case?
Vuk Drašković explicitly said on Tanjug TV in June that a not guilty verdict had been reached, and then he repeated it a few times. Moreover, Danica Drašković, in her op-ed published in Danas, also stated this explicitly, mentioning the whole context along with explanations to the effect that nothing else could have been expected, that the 'deep state' and state security service were protecting their own.
In the course of the trial and investigation, which lasted for 10 years, all the while there was extremely strong obstruction, often verging on eliminating important evidence from the court proceedings even though there were two verdicts imposing that the tapes that had recorded the movements of State Security Service (DB) officers be returned among the evidence. Paradoxically enough, the court of appeal returned the procedure to the court of first instance, and this court convicted the accused – two times – to a total of 100 years of prison.
Having learned all this, I wrote a letter to the court of appeal asking if a verdict had been reached, and following the correspondence I was informed that it had been, but that it had not been published yet. I was, of course, not able to find out what the verdict was, but this information and the time period coincided with the information made public by Vuk and Danica Drašković. A month ago, I received information from a state secretary to the effect that it was certain that the verdict was ‘not guilty’, and then also from a few of our journalist colleagues who are following different trials, so, at this moment, it is more certain that this is a not guilty verdict than another one, a conviction or different forms of imprisonment.
I cannot much delve on the reasons for why this might be so – if it is true, this will be seen in the decision’s rationale, but it is clear that such a decision would harm the position of journalists in Serbia since impunity for killing a journalist or violence against journalists is the most common generator of other murders and violent acts. In this case, and I repeat, provided that the information is true, this would mean that journalists would not be able to count on a serious legal protection. If such a decision is adjudicated in the case in which the state stood behind the whole process of retrial and re-investigation, after the long years of work of the Prosecutor’s Office and the engagement of the Commission for Investigating Killings of Journalists, it would be a defeat both for the state and for journalism, as well as for any investigation in cases involving murders of journalists.
The attorney of the Ćuruvija family, Slobodan Ružić, says that there are extraordinary legal remedies, mentioning the Court of Cassation, however, the experts claim that the verdict – whichever it might be – is a final one. Do you know something about whether proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights might be expected?
I think that the Court of Cassation can only determine whether there have been procedural failings in reaching the verdict, but without any consequences for the defendants. However, it is certainly necessary to use any legal remedy available. It is also necessary to internationalize the case to a greatest possible extent.
Of course, this very much depends on the family and on ourselves in the media community, on the agreement about the way in which to continue this investigation. Regardless of the decision pronounced by the court, we must not give up on this case, or any other one.
It is clear that for the already unfavourable position of journalists and media in Serbia who are not on the so-called line of state politics, an acquittal can have a negative impact, but should we expect it to have an even broader influence?
The investigation led in the Slavko Ćuruvija murder case had a global significance, and this being so, the state of Serbia was commended, as well as the police and the prosecutor’s office that had pressed charges. The two verdicts resonated very strongly worldwide as an encouraging result and a mechanism making it possible to get results at the level of the judiciary even with a twenty-year-old case. The case is a very well-known one, followed not only by the U.S. Committee to Protect Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists, but also by international organizations such as the European Commission and its bodies, the State Department and organizations within the U.S. Administration, which have jointly provided great support.
At the same time, a possible acquittal would reflect in a huge regress of Serbia on media freedom lists; if I’m not mistaken, we rank 93rd on the Reporters Without Borders’ index, and in 2014, when charges were pressed, we ranked 54th. This is a concerning trend. A final acquittal in this case would help Serbia get a more serious treatment and achieve better results when it comes to international views on what is happening in Serbia and the fight against impunity for murders of and attacks against journalists, and overall, on the safety of journalists as such.
Apart from the Ćuruvija case, we have two other murders; first, that of Dada Vujasinović, who was killed thirty years ago, and second, the murder of Milan Pantić. When he was killed 22 years ago, it was believed that the case would quickly be resolved, yet it is still in the pre-investigation procedure and we keep waiting for it to reach the Office of the Prosecutor for Organized Crime, even though the Commission insists upon this.
The killing of Milan Pantić and the investigation that was led abounded in obstructions as well, even though at the time we thought that the killing of a journalist would be impermissible and that the murder would quickly be resolved.
This did not happen even though the Commission, i.e. the Working Group of the Ministry of Interior and the BIA that worked on the case, found data about the killers and confirmed the names and identities of those who liquidated Pantić, but in order to close the case, it was important to identify the motive. The motive was a contested privatization in that area, and this is precisely why the engagement of the Office of the Prosecutor for Organized Crime is necessary, as this is one of the 24 contemptuous privatizations from the European Commission’s list.
The investigation was stopped in 2010, even though in 2013 a witness appeared, with documents corroborating the thesis from the investigation about the motive for the murder. At this moment, the material has been transferred from Jagodina to the Prosecutor’s Office for them to determine whether they will take over the investigation, which is a stalemate.
As pertains to Dada Vujasinović, as you know, that investigation had a huge handicap, having been led for a long time as a suicide. The passage of time was so long that these forensic analyses were the only thing to do, but the case is still open.
It is in your line of work to know about the (lack of) safety of journalists, and at the moment, the case of OK radio in Vranje is topical. However, media associations, dissatisfied with the reaction of competent authorities, left the Government’s Working Group [for Safety and Protection of Journalists]. What can the media community do in order to protect journalists and media?
There are two bodies that are being mistaken for one another, the Permanent Working Group for Safety of Journalists, established in 2017, comprised of all the associations, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Interior. In the meanwhile, its work has been enhanced, we have around 100 contact points in prosecution offices, and the work in the case of OK radio is one of the examples of achieved synergy; a local criminal Dejan Nikolić was convicted for threats and endangering the safety [of OK radio owner and employee], and sentenced to, first, 14 months in prison, and then to an additional 18 months. Of course, a lot remains to be done, and the illegal building that has walled up the radio is yet to be demolished, however, thanks to the synergy of journalists’ associations that followed the case, the local prosecutor’s office and the police, progress has been achieved. The OSCE participates in the work of the Group, we have a telephone hotline, we hold meetings in towns where problems have been noted and we are trying to have proceedings initiated.
The Working Group established by the Prime Minister was a debacle because there wasn’t a clear platform and understanding of why do the double work – it is pointless to make another body doing the same work. The journalist community held a view that this was a working group dealing with policies outside of the scope of the Criminal Code, but a part of the Government’s working group did not accept the proposals to condemn the cases that did not constitute criminal offences, but that were examples of chasing down and targeting journalists or certain editorial boards, of calling them out in Parliament, of creating a truly toxic climate, easily susceptible to grow into forms of violence, which no one among us would want. This was the reason why the journalists’ associations had left the group.
I think that there are reasons to have a body that would react on a daily basis to cases of endangering the safety of journalists and the media and to fierce accusations, but this would require careful planning and organization of what this body does, and how it does it.
If I am not mistaken, someone from the Government or from the Parliament said that pressures on journalists cannot be defined, which is a pretty arbitrary estimate.
It is clear that the greatest and most severe pressures are coming from the highest levels of government, which is impermissible and which further generates attacks on social media through personal chases by bots or people who often have mental health issues. This tells us that this will not stop at the verbal level and that it can put both journalists and media in jeopardy. The satanization of certain journalists and editorial boards is impermissible and it reflects, among other things, on the functioning of all media. If you are isolated, you don’t get information and responses from government representatives, and you can’t do your work. I remember that Insajder used to get most of its data from official sources via the Law on Access to Information of Public Importance, but this pathway is also closed today.
There are many fronts on which the media, particularly the independent media, are endangered, forced to reduce the number of journalists, while the general impoverishment of the media threatens the security of journalists who want to do their job seriously. In the nineties, we had a network of media covered by donations, and today, journalists are left to their own devices.
The “Ćuruvija” case; the crime and the proceedingsThe owner of the Dnevni telegraf daily and of the weekly Evropljanin, Slavko Ćuruvija, was killed on 11 April 1999 in front of the building where he lived, in Svetogorska Street, Belgrade. He was accompanied by his wife Branka Prpa. The indictment states that an unknown person filed a rifle from a distance of 1.5m, following which Ćuruvija fell to the ground, when he was shot at again from his immediate surroundings. On this occasion, Branka Prpa was also wounded, and according to the indictment, Ratko Romić hit her in the head with a gun so as to prevent her from seeing Ćuruvija’s killers. The investigation confirmed that Ćuruvija had been followed by members of the State Security Service (DB), but that on the eve of the murder, the following stopped. A few days before the assassination, the regime-affiliated Politika ekspres published a slander titled “Ćuruvija welcomes bombs”, which was also read in the prime-time news programme on state television. This put Ćuruvija on the hit-list. After leaving the position of editor-in-chief in state newspaper Borba, Ćuruvija founded NT, in early 1996, and the first independent daily in Serbia, Dnevni telegraf, and then also the weekly Evropljanin. The Ćuruvija murder trial began in June 2015, seventy years after the assassination, which had been immediately recognized by the public as ritual liquidation of a person with different political views. In 2019, the Special Court in Belgrade [The Special Department for Organized Crime of the High Court in Belgrade] declared four former members of the State Security Service guilty of murder, highlighting that the direct perpetrator of the murder was an unknown person. The verdict sentenced former head of the State Security Service Radomir Marković to 30 years in prison, for soliciting to first-degree murder. Former head of the Belgrade intelligence branch Milan Radonjić was also sentenced to a 30-year prison term for first-degree murder. Former DB members Ratko Romić and Miroslav Kurak received prison sentences of 20 years each, for murder in the first degree. The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict in September 2020, providing a rationale to the effect that the Special Court overstepped the bounds of the indictment with its verdict and that, by introducing an unknown person as the perpetrator, it significantly changed the facts described in the indictment. In the retrial, in December 2021, the Special Court re-sentenced Marković and Radonjić to 30-year prison terms each, while Romić and Kurak were each sentenced once more to 20 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal thus decided to re-open the main hearing in order to establish evidence it deems necessary for reaching a final verdict. The main hearing in the proceedings related to the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija began on 6 March before the Council of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade. Marković testified in the hearing that he stood by the defence presented in the first-instance trial, whereby he denied being guilty of the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija, according to the Beta news agency. He also denied the claims from the testimony of former commander of the dissolved Special Operations Unit Milorad Ulemek Legija, who, during the investigation, accused him of killing Ćuruvija. Branka Prpa, the common-law wife of Slavko Ćuruvija, who was with him when he was killed, stated in the hearing of 6 March that she did not recognize either Miroslav Kurak or Ratko Romić, accused of being direct perpetrators, as the attacker who shot Ćuruvija. The investigation and the data from base stations established the movements of the defendants. |