The trial of defendants Nikola Ivović and Dušan Šilj, charged with the crime of “aggravated murder” of Stefan Šarović, concluded today with the closing statements at the Higher Court in Podgorica.

The first-instance verdict is set to be announced on February 21st.

While defendant Šilj is currently at large, defendant Ivović was present during the trial.

As per the indictment, Šilj and Ivović are alleged to have murdered Stefan Šarović on June 6, 2019, at around 15:20, near the “Akacija” villa in Đenovići.

Šilj is accused of having, along with Nikola Ivović, intentionally murdered Šarović.

They face charges of aggravated murder and illegal possession of weapons and explosives.

After spending time with Šarović at the “Kaskara” restaurant, they manipulated his trust and friendship into inviting him to follow them. The indictment indicates that upon reaching the “Akacija” complex, the defendants opened fire on Šarović with pre-prepared weapons before escaping on a motorcycle down a local road.

Attorney Aleksandra Rogošić, representing defendant Ivović, suggested in her closing argument that the court absolve Ivović of criminal liability, arguing that individuals are accountable only for actions taken with intent. She stated, “If the injured party attempted to take away the firearm while still attacking, then there’s no illegality, and my client shouldn’t be convicted. Should the court find that Ivović committed an offense against Šarović, it would not align with the indictment but instead could be viewed as exceeding the limits of necessary defense. I urge the court to consider mitigating factors, including his youth, financial situation, genuine remorse, behavior throughout the proceedings, and honest confession of his actions, albeit not those outlined in the indictment,” highlighted Rogošić.

The reason for Ivović being at “Kaskara” with Šarović was to execute a pre-agreed scheme for illicit firearms trafficking.

“This agreement entailed the transfer of purchased firearms from Ivović and Šilj to the now-deceased Šarović, who was to provide payment. This transaction occurred between 14:00 and 15:00 on June 6, 2019, during the busy tourist season, in plain view, with the injured party socializing just before heading to ‘Akacija Hill.’ This was captured by multiple cameras. One must question what was so treacherous, as the prosecution asserts, regarding a supposedly premeditated plan. The evidence irrefutably shows that the defendants lacked the intent to kill Šarović, engaged in no deceitful actions, nor had any prior agreement to kill him. If they had indeed plotted treachery, they wouldn’t have done so so blatantly in daylight after socializing with Šarović in public,” Rogošić stated.

She further explained that the evidence demonstrates both Ivović and Šarović were aware of their destination and purpose for going to the “Acacia Hill” complex.

“Ivović concealed the purchased weapons – pistols – at that location, intending to inspect, deliver, and complete the payment. There was no other motive for their visit. Ivović arrived unarmed while the injured party was armed. Ivović had a backpack containing the pistols, and instead of paying for the weapons, Šarović drew a pistol, claiming ‘I’ll pay you now.’ This led to a scuffle over the gun, and when Ivović managed to wrest it away, he stepped back while Šarović advanced. Out of anger and frustration, he shot a few rounds, possibly two aimed at Šarović’s legs. This surprised him, as he had trusted and befriended Šarović,” Rogošić elaborated.

She asserted that Ivović acted in resistance to an unlawful attack.

“Since the firearm was first in the possession of the injured party, who cocked it and aimed it at Ivović, presumably with the intent to fire if Ivović moved, he had no option but to attempt to disarm Šarović. His intent was not to kill, and the shot fired at Šarović’s legs could be construed as exceeding self-defense limits,” Rogošić remarked.

Upon a meticulous review of the case files, the defense arrived at contrasting conclusions, contending that the prosecution’s assertions had no foundation in the evidence available.

The defense team anticipated the prosecutor to clarify the indictment provisions before concluding, allowing for a legal qualification that accurately reflects the actual events.

Attorney Damir Lekić, in his closing argument, asserted that no evidence linked Dušan Šilj to the crime of “aggravated murder” or “illegal possession of weapons.”

“The evidence does not support that Šilj committed this crime. I propose that the court acquit him of all charges,” concluded attorney Lekić.

News