Priority Trials

In 1991 when Vuk Draskovic, the leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) faced charges because of the events of March 9th and the speech he delivered from the balcony of the National Theater in Belgrade, academician Mihajlo Markovic, the leading ideologist of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), went even further and elaborated this thought, by saying, ``If we decide that the trial of Vuk Draskovic suits us we will set the date of the court proceeding.'' It was a clear warning to the judges that they don't really have to do their job all the time, i.e. practice law. After the consultations with the chairman of the court, the judge scheduled the date of the trial, the decision which exclusively falls under his competencies, without inquiring whether the date suits the leaders of the ruling party, who had, as it turned out later, planned that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic frees the accused of the criminal responsibility by an abolicio, i.e. the discontinuance of the legal proceedings. Not because he is a kindhearted person or because he didn't wish to see Vuk Draskovic behind bars, but thanks to the pressure coming from the world as well as suggestions that he doesn't do anything stupid. Naturally, the judge who failed either to hear Markovic's warning or to take it seriously was scolded and told not to expect a promotion in any foreseeable time. Many judges at the Palace of Justice in Belgrade have learnt their lesson and the newspaper clips containing Markovic's instructions can be found hidden somewhere in their cabinets, so they do not happen to forget or begin to believe that the judiciary is independent.

When it comes to the Public Prosecutor's Offices, they are not even trying to conceal that they are obedient and efficient executioners (the prosecutors and the chairmen of the courts in Serbia are respectable members of the Socialist Party of Serbia) of the power holders' orders, even if these clash with the proclaimed principles, such as, for example, the principle of equality before the law. The following is illustrative: the trousers of Radoman Bozovic, the Speaker of the Federal Parliament's Chamber of Citizens, did not even dry up after being sprinkled with water thrown on him from the floor of the Federal Parliament (May 18) and the First Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office already drafted an indictment against Vojislav Seselj, the leader of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and four other members of SRS. Such a swift action has not been recorded at the Palace of Justice. Those in the know claim that the Republic Public Prosecutor's Office (that is much better informed and has closer ties with the SPS leadership) assessed that Seselj and 4 of his MP's should be brought under pressure and taken to court as soon as possible because of ``preventing a security officer in carrying out his duty.'' Seselj and the four parliament members did not allow the security service of the parliament to use force and throw out the MP who spilled water on Radoman Bozovic. The trial is scheduled to take place on June 15, although Seselj voiced his thoughts that the trial will be an embarrassment to SPS and that SPS will be clever enough not to hold the trial at all. However, together with the accused MP's he decided not to rely on an MP immunity and to respond to the court summons. ``It would be terribly stupid to avoid that trial, that spectacle...,'' Seselj said.

It seems that Seselj saw through SPS and that there won't be a spectacle. The rumours at the Palace of Justice have it that the trial would not be held in the presence of the public and the journalists, as it qualified as the socalled reduced criminal case where the judge who tries the accused is also in charge of the investigation. It is well known that the investigation must be secret which rules out the presence of the public and the journalists. Moreover, the court room designated for this trial is so small that it can only accommodate the court council, the accused, the prosecutor and the lawyers. Given the circumstances it wouldn't be a surprise if the accused, as there would be no spectacle, decided to refer to their immunity, which they may do at any stage of the trial. This, on the other hand, does not imply that five MP's will be able to evade the criminal responsibility if SPS should insist on it. If the Parliamentary Board for the questions of immunity and mandates, where the Socialists hold the overwhelming majority, decides to deny them the MP immunity, it is expected that the trial will be over in a record time. However, it is believed that this will not be done and that the five Radicals will not be tried because the trial would only boost the rating of their the Serbian Radical Party and set a serious precedent in our parliamentary practice.

``SPS decides what trials have a priority,'' is what we were told at the First Municipal Court that is without a doubt the busiest in Belgrade. It has recently been literally swamped with nonsensical slander and libel cases (this court covers most of the newspaper companies and television stations) and furious prosecutors publicly threaten the accused that they will put them in jail and send them lunchpacks.

While ordinary citizens are being kept waiting for years until the court takes into consideration their wellargumented charges for injustice they suffered, the charges raised by the people close to the authorities have a priority again because of the orders coming from the top political leadership.

The socalled custody cases are often being postponed, which means that the people who may be innocent, are forced to wait in custody either until the custody is suspended or the trial held and the verdict passed (less than five years) and are freed until the verdict goes into effect. All because the people like Mihajlo Markovic appropriate the competencies of the court and decide who will stand trial and when.

The Lukic Case

On the 6th of April this year Dragoslav Rakic, the Investigative Judge of the District Court in Belgrade, initiated the investigative proceedings against Milan Lukic because of a reasonable doubt that he may have abducted 17 passengers from the train the BelgradeBar route at the train station in Strpci on February 17, 1993. Since no witnesses were found during the preliminary criminal proceedings who could testify that Lukic had taken part in the abduction, the case was suspended, and Lukic was released from custody on April 27.

He was arrested again the same day and held in prison until being extradited to the organs of the Bosnian Serb Republic.

Judge Dobrivoje Gerasimovic, who signed the extradition orders, said that Lukic himself expressed the wish to go to the Bosnian Serb Republic.

Reacting to the Lukic case, the SOS hotline for the victims of the political, ethnic, national, syndicalist, and racial discrimination sent an open letter to Zoran Stojanovic, the Federal Justice Minister. The following is an excerpt from the letter.

``We heard on the program ``Krovovi'' (``Roofs'') on TV Politika that you said ``you don't know who extradited Milan Lukic to the Bosnian Serb Republic.'' We believe that you ought to hand in your resignation after making that statement.

We do not really know what the purpose of the further course of the discussion about ``the state governed by law'' and other topics was to be, but we thing that it was completely redundant. When the Justice Minister of one state, even if it may ``not be governed by law,'' but nevertheless is a state, says he doesn't know who extradited the person who is under investigation on suspicion of having committed a war crime where 17 of his fellow citizens died, we believe that it is only natural that he resigns. What is his moral and professional authority, what is the authority of the position he holds, if he answers such a question, by saying, ``I don't know''? Does such a Minister know anything at all?

We believe that such a statement of yours can be considered a form of protest against the party that issued the extradition orders. However, we think that is not good enough for you to continue to do your job. Why have you squandered so easily the professional and humane authority of an honorable professor of the criminal law at the University of Novi Sad that you have built over the years?...''

J. D.