Five police officers were found not guilty of using excessive force to obtain a statement from Marko Boljevic during the investigation into the bombings at the Grand bar and the residence of former secret agent Duško Golubović.

The initial ruling from the Podgorica Basic Court, delivered yesterday, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims that police inspectors Danilo Grbović, Dalibor Ljekocevic, Bojan Vujacic, Ivan Perunicic, and Nemanja Vujosevic committed the alleged crime.

The court explained that the allegations in the indictment presented by the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office were primarily derived from the testimony of Boljević, the alleged victim:

“The fact that the incident was not reported until the following day significantly impeded the ability to accurately and definitively ascertain the signs of violence on the victim’s body, ultimately affecting the determination of when the injuries occurred,” the ruling states.

Furthermore, the court remarked that in this particular case, the principle of timeliness—an integral international standard in investigations of torture and inhumane treatment—was not upheld.

“Conversely, the evidentiary proceedings conducted at the main trial raised serious doubts about the credibility of the claims made in the prosecution’s indictment. This was supported by a medical expert’s testimony, which stated that the injuries should have been apparent when the victim was interrogated by the state prosecutor. Following this expert testimony, the court heard from the state prosecutor who conducted the questioning, and she testified that she did not observe any injuries on the victim and that he exited her office ‘normally’,” it added.

When this is logically connected with the statements from police officers who administered the polygraph tests, which indicated they noticed no injuries or distress in the victim, and that any such findings would have necessitated a postponement of the polygraph examination, significant doubts remain about the factual and legal foundations of the indictment.

“Ultimately, the court finds that the forensic expertise from the Medical Faculty in Podgorica indicates that the victim’s injuries could have occurred anywhere from roughly 10 minutes to 72 hours before the forensic examination took place. This suggests that these injuries may have arisen from an incident unrelated to the matters at hand in this case. Since court findings cannot rest on speculation or doubt, the court, drawing on the universal legal principle of ‘In dubio pro reo’, acquitted the accused of the charges utilizing Article 373, point 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code,” the verdict states.

During her closing statements, prosecutor Romina Vlahović modified the factual description of the indictment regarding Boljević’s injuries.

She then referenced statements from the accused and witnesses—primarily police officers—characterizing their testimonies as illogical, contradictory, inaccurate, and aimed at evading criminal liability.

In particular, she highlighted the testimonies of former police officials Miloš Vučinić and Srđan Korac, the direct supervisor of the five accused officers.

“It is absurd and illogical that Miloš Vučinić and Srđan Korać were unaware of their officers’ actions,” she asserted, suggesting their testimonies were crafted to assist the defendants while also minimizing their potential for criminal liability.

In her closing remarks, she urged the court to prioritize the statements from the victim and his father, who claimed to have seen visible injuries on his son that evening following the questioning at the Podgorica prosecutor’s office.

She recommended that the court find the defendants guilty and impose a three-year prison sentence.

In response, one of the defense attorneys for the accused, lawyer Marko Radovic, requested the court to exonerate the five police officers. He argued that the prosecution’s approach was tactical and that it had not substantiated the allegations against the defendants.

“While we initially opposed the super-examination, I believe that confirming the expert findings and opinions has effectively strengthened this indictment,” lawyer Radović stated to Judge Larisa Mijušković Stamatović.

He emphasized that the prosecution had a duty to clearly specify the context in which the victim Boljević provided his statement to the ODT in Podgorica, which he argued was the direct result of the alleged torture he experienced.

“This same prosecution employed questionable tactics, waiting until the first trial concluded with a not-guilty verdict regarding Boljević’s contested statement before initiating this proceeding. Up until the end of that trial, the prosecution had treated Boljević’s disputed statement as truthful and legally valid. The court did not classify Boljević’s disputed statement as legally invalid at that time, nor did the prosecution raise objections in that regard. Therefore, the Basic Court’s final judgment in Podgorica case K.br. 505-20 treated that statement as legally valid evidence. This raises the legitimate question of how it can now be regarded as obtained under duress in this trial, constituting a separate criminal offense,” Radović concluded in his remarks.

News